DerekLong101

I prefer to leave this as 0.01 for legacy consistency. Users should be aware that it needs to be set for validation of a plan in specific contexts.

Really? I don't believe that there should be. Are you willing to share an example domain/problem? ________________________________ From: Masataro Asai Sent: 22 February 2019 11:54:05 To: KCL-Planning/VAL Cc: Subscribed Subject:...

I don't see this domain set on your branch. ________________________________ From: Masataro Asai Sent: 22 February 2019 13:29:47 To: KCL-Planning/VAL Cc: Long, Derek; Comment Subject: Re: [KCL-Planning/VAL] VAL does not...

Thanks for this. Are we actually interested in having the MAX DEPTH value increased? And if so, to what value? Or might it be better to put a graceful exit...

You have a domain without objects. That's fine, but TIM is concerned with properties that are invariants of the objects in the domain. No objects, no invariants. Now, it is...

It breaks the parser because the parser does not expect tokens of the form (not (...)) in the initial state and treats them as errors (the BNF does not allow...

No, as I said, TIM only finds invariants for object properties - this domain has no objects. It is possible to implement 0-analysis, but it is not implemented in this...

Hmm. I don't think that I can be sure of finding a copy - I will have a look. It was implemented to work with a type-free PDDL subset, so...

Thanks Flogo. I am sure you are right that this is the yacc limit. I am not sure that this is a priority issue - but I wiĺ see what...

Yes, quite right, they should be accepted. This is an outstanding issue that I should have dealt with long ago. I will try to get on top of it and...