3 ms·

These wordings are basically a manual description of a diff. They wouldn't be necessary if version control would be used for laws. I actually think version con

• harvey9 2y ago
  Might work in some systems but England has Case Law stacked on top of statutes. That's tricky to turn back into code.
  • masklinn 2y ago
    Case law is basically monkey-patching (or wrapping / decorating). It’s part of the running law but does not modify the law itself in—source.
    • harvey9 2y ago
      I had thought the goal here was something more than just 'track changes', which legislators could do in Word
• throwaway290 2y ago
  > They wouldn't be necessary if version control would be used for laws. So a country only needs to rewrite all the laws to adopt versioning, cool. In reality both have can be used, commits to see what changed by whom and wordings that says what changed
  • plextoria 2y ago
    > So a country only needs to rewrite all the laws to adopt versioning, cool. No, they only need to start using versioning in order to adopt versioning. Think of an "initial git commit"
    • globalise83 2y ago
      "Grundgesetz MVP commit"
• jxramos 2y ago
  I can imagine these "relative text patches" could just commit as is written but could be committed with a corresponding metadata and referential locations array backed by some kind of encoding that lands in the same commit. That would unlock a visualization tool that could render a strikeout for the earlier precedent legal text or something like that in whatever way the modification applies.