Author malte
Recipients malte, rpgoldman, ukuter
Date 2012-02-16.20:34:37
That's because types within predicate definitions are ignored -- you can write
"(at ?x - (foo (((bar) baz bla))) ?y - (or (not (and ?x :action foo))))" and I
think the planner would accept it.

Unfortunately, there is no authoritative semantics for type annotations in the
:predicates block and no two people I've talked to have given the same opinion
on what the semantics should be...

We can tighten that, too, and only allow declared :types in the predicate type
Date User Action Args
2012-02-16 20:34:38maltesetmessageid: <>
2012-02-16 20:34:38maltesetrecipients: + malte, rpgoldman, ukuter
2012-02-16 20:34:38maltelinkissue323 messages
2012-02-16 20:34:37maltecreate