ENFORCE-statement does not combine with a MEANING statement

[RieksJ]

The ENFORCE statement specifies a rule/constraint, as well as a working instruction to resolve violations.

Contrary to RULE statements, the ENFORCE statement does not allow a MEANING to be specified.
Since we want to provide users the ability to generate complete documentation, the ENFORCE statement should be allowed to have an associated MEANING.

[hanjoosten]

I think this is a totally valid request.

That said, this isn't easy to implement. An ENFORCE statement is currently implemented as syntactical sugar. It is translated into one or two RULEs (depending on the operator that is used). In case of := as operator, there will be two rules. The other operators will lead to a single rule. I suggest that the MEANING, will be copied to all derived rules.