In `Relations.i6t`

, the first six routines are used to test/set various parameters that define the relation’s type. Using the first one as an example:

```
[ RELATION_TY_EquivalenceAdjective rel set perms state handler;
perms = RlnGetF(rel, RR_PERMISSIONS); ! <--- retrieves current permissions
if (perms & RELS_EQUIVALENCE) state = true;
if (set < 0) return state;
if ((set) && (state == false)) {
perms = perms + RELS_EQUIVALENCE;
if (perms & RELS_SYMMETRIC == 0) perms = perms + RELS_SYMMETRIC;
}
if ((set == false) && (state)) {
perms = perms - RELS_EQUIVALENCE;
if (perms & RELS_SYMMETRIC) perms = perms - RELS_SYMMETRIC;
}
RlnSetF(rel, RR_PERMISSIONS, perms); ! <--- modifies current permissions
handler = RlnGetF(rel, RR_HANDLER);
if (handler(rel, RELS_SET_VALENCY, perms & VALENCY_MASK) == 0) ! <--- tests for success of change
"*** Can't change this to an equivalence relation ***";
];
```

Note that the current permissions are changed whether or not the handler reports a success for the `RELS_SET_VALENCY`

task. Future tests of permissions will report state as though the change had been successful.

To demonstrate the effect:

```
"False Positive"
Place is a room.
Alice is a woman in Place.
Bob is a man in Place.
When play begins:
let R be a relation of things; [defaults to non-equivalence]
now R relates Alice to Bob; [assertion prevents change of relation type]
if R is equivalence, say "Test 1: equiv."; [correctly fails]
now R is equivalence; [conversion fails]
if R is equivalence, say "Test 2: equiv."; [false positive]
```

Although the demonstration uses a temporary relation, the same occurs for normal relations.

Is this intended behavior? If so, can someone explain why?