Eric, I'm pretty sure that you may be misunderstanding here.  In the 
example listed below, the node labeled "ADF" would be an *ADF* class, 
not an *ADFArgument* class.  The (in this case: one) ADFArgument node 
would not be in the function set of the result-producing branch, but in 
the ADF branch.

For example, let's say the result branch is the one you listed below. 
I'll put it in Lisp form:

	(if xx (adf (if yx yy yz)) xy)

When the 'adf' node is called, we first call its subtree (if yx yy yz) 
and store that in a variable called, say, foo0.  Then ccontrol is 
transferred to its corresponding ADF tree.  Let's say that tree looks 
like this:

ADF: 	(* (sin adfargument0) (+ x 1))

When the adfargument0 terminal is called, it returns the value of foo0. 
    Ultimately the ADF tree returns a value, let's say it's 'bar'. 
Control then returns to the result branch and the 'adf' node returns the 
value bar, and we continue on our merry way.

Sean

Eric B wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:08:05 -0500, Sean Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> It looks like your function sets are all messed up.  You don't seem to
>> have ADFArgument nodes in the function set of the ADF tree you created.
>>  And you may be using types (it's not clear) but are missing
>> nonterminals entirely for a certain function set.  Perhaps gp.fs.0.size
>> or gp.fs.1.size or whatnot has the wrong number?
>>
>> Take a look not at the lawnmower problem but the two-box problem, which
>> actually has an ADF that takes some arguments.
>>
>> Sean
> 
> 
> I don't want to use ADFArgument because with ADFArugment only terminals are
> accapted as argument. It's in the code of ADFArgument itself!
> What I want is an ADF that takes as argument a subtree! I know the type of
> the root of that tree (it's the If function which takes 3 arguments). So
> basically I want to be able to have the following trees.
> 
> This is the result producing branch:
> 
>           if
>            |
> -----------------------------
> |           |               |
> xx         ADF              xy
>             |
>            if
>             |
>         ----------
>         |    |    |
>        yx    yy   yz
> 
> I hope the lay out won't be messed up.