Re: issues while porting priority_methods to use peak.rules.predicates.priority

At 12:58 AM 8/18/2010 +0200, Christoph Zwerschke wrote:
>Am 17.08.2010 23:21 schrieb Alberto Valverde:
>>Is there any way to tell peak.rules to consider that a "priority" is
>>always implied by any other criterion so the fact that it is present
>>in a predicate doesn't raise the predicate's selectiveness? (does
>>that make sense?)
>
>Strangely, even when I add priorities everywhere, I still get the 
>AmbiguousMethods error, is this a bug?

Yes.  priority implication should be >=, not >.  Fixed in SVN.  Thanks!