Nate Cull's Planner

[rpatten (Robert Patten)]

I was hoping to use Nate Cull’s Planning extension, but this message comes up when I include it and try to compile:

[rant]This is the report produced by Inform 7 (build 6G60) on its most recent run through:

In Section - Definitions and Globals in the extension Planner by Nate Cull:

Problem. I am unable to put any value into the variable ‘requested relation’, which needs to be a planning-relation, because the world does not contain a planning-relation.

---

Problem. I am unable to put any value into the variable ‘desired relation’, which needs to be a planning-relation, because the world does not contain a planning-relation.[/rant]

I’m guessing something changed with my version of Inform, and the extension was never updated. Does anyone know what I need to fix in the code?

[Felix_Larsson]

The extension doesn’t define a default planning-relation. As soon as you define one in your source, that problem will disappear. (“Potemkin is a planning-relation.”)

However, that produces a number of more serious issues all alike.

Problem. In ‘if an action was planned, change G to 9999’ , it looks as if you want to use ‘let’ to change the value of the temporary variable ‘G’. Ordinarily that would be fine, but it’s not allowed when the variable is used as the counter in a ‘repeat’ loop, or has some other do-not-disturb purpose - this could cause chaotic effects. The rule is: you can only change an existing value with ‘let’ if it was created by ‘let’ in the first place.

It seems Nate Cull used a now illegal way to break out of a for/repeat loop. I guess these should all be replaced with a break phrase at the end of their respective block of code.

[rpatten (Robert Patten)]

@Felix

The extension doesn’t define a default planning-relation. As soon as you define one in your source, that problem will disappear. (“Potemkin is a planning-relation.”)

However, that produces a number of more serious issues all alike.

Problem. In ‘if an action was planned, change G to 9999’ , it looks as if you want to use ‘let’ to change the value of the temporary variable ‘G’. Ordinarily that would be fine, but it’s not allowed when the variable is used as the counter in a ‘repeat’ loop, or has some other do-not-disturb purpose - this could cause chaotic effects. The rule is: you can only change an existing value with ‘let’ if it was created by ‘let’ in the first place.

It seems Nate Cull used a now illegal way to break out of a for/repeat loop. I guess these should all be replaced with a break phrase at the end of their respective block of code.

Thanks, Felix!