-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 127
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Unintuitive wellformedness warnings for fact usage #597
Comments
I think there are two points here:
|
On 2: semantically they are of course different, however I have seen many novice users confuse themselves when using the same fact name for actions and state facts. This warning does not help them though, so I am undecided on changing. Being more precise in the actual warning given, when capitalization is identical, would be good. It will still be a problem when there are three instances, two are capitalized the same, but third is not, then it must be shown and has the same downside about not being relevant for all. |
When checking the fact usage (capitalization, arity, multiplicity) facts in the LHS and RHS of rules as well as action facts are included leading to unintuitive wellformedness warnings.
For example, the theory
produces the warning:
Intuitively, action facts and facts on the LHS and RHS should be compared separately as they are independent from each other.
Moreover, reason 1 above can be ruled out as the capitalization is the same.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: