This is indeed dynamic-rules specific: when lifting, a rule with @ in its LHS, produces a dummified term like: `[]@t' which is used for storing and looking up bindings.
Simply using term-projection `try(?As(_,<id>))' on the LHS is probably not sufficient, since the LHS may also contain As's deeper inside.
Arthur van Dam [2004-04-26 12:20]
This is indeed dynamic-rules specific: when lifting, a rule with @ in its LHS, produces a dummified term like: `[]@t' which is used for storing and looking up bindings.
Simply using term-projection `try(?As(_,<id>))' on the LHS is probably not sufficient, since the LHS may also contain As's deeper inside.
Normal strategies `?s @ t @ (1,2)' work fine.
Bug
Closed
Major
@ in dynamic rule match
Simply using term-projection `try(?As(_,<id>))' on the LHS is probably not sufficient, since the LHS may also contain As's deeper inside.
Normal strategies `?s @ t @ (1,2)' work fine.