Just for my understanding when you say 'the reason of failure' are you refering to the propagator (assuming it is a propagator) that would have made at least one domain empty. Also in my understanding I would expect no more propagators to be invoked after such a propagator has been invoked. How do you define the 'real reason of failure' and how is it possible that many more propagators will be invoked after this propagator?
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Christian Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, as said the last propagator will just almost never be the reason for > failure: the real reason might be some propagator that ran one million steps > earlier ;-( > > I am guessing here but I think that George was referring to step() rather > than propagate() which does a single propagator step at a time and that he > traces all propagator executions for learning nogoods. step() has never made > it into a released system. > > Christian > > -- > Christian Schulte, www.ict.kth.se/~cschulte/ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Rijsman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:48 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Mikael Zayenz Lagerkvist; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [gecode-users] Access to the last propagator invoked in case of > ES_FAILED > > > But one could enumerate the reasons. I mean being in a search one > could conclude that the reason of a failure is due to the branching in > case one has no propagator and because of the propagator if one has > one. Being outside the search one can conclude the same but the reason > is not the branching but the posting of the constraint in case of a > failure without a last propagator. > > _______________________________________________ Gecode users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users
