11 Apr
2006
11 Apr
'06
9:14 a.m.
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 06:48:35PM +0100, Claus Reinke wrote:
note also that we are talking about different things here: I am talking about FD consistency, you are talking about the FD consistency condition.
That would explain a few things.
as this example shows once again, there are instance declarations for which the FD consistency condition, as currently interpreted by Hugs, fails, even though no inconsistent constraints are implied. so I fail to see the point of continuing to require the FD consistency condition in unrevised form.
Do you have a revised set of restrictions on the form of instances?