> Hmmm, what's the best answer for stackoverflow?
> > > (2 cons (-> @F)))
> "Tune the magic number to allow the correct unification bindings to
> reach up into rules which are calling this one, as far as needed, in a
> given application. The value of 2 here works for one test, but use 3 to
> make the other test work."
Hmm, unsatisfactory ... :(
I'm not very happy with the situation. It is a design flaw in Pilog.
A cleaner solution would be to restructure the involved rules in such a
way that the bindings are propagated up the "normal" way through the
call hierarchy (and not from a deeply nested level directly to the top).
I'm not sure how to do it in the case of golog, though.