It says here たらcannot replace てから because of an intentional act in the past.
Why would one interpret "宿題をしました" an intentional act not simply a statement of fact in the past?
Is any part of the syntax fit only to represent an intention?
If not, perhaps we should rephrase the intent of this grammar structure to say that たら cannot convey a fact of the past.
◯家へ帰ってから、宿題をしました。
X家へ帰ってたら、宿題をしました。
Why would one interpret "宿題をしました" an intentional act not simply a statement of fact in the past?
Is any part of the syntax fit only to represent an intention?
If not, perhaps we should rephrase the intent of this grammar structure to say that たら cannot convey a fact of the past.
◯家へ帰ってから、宿題をしました。
X家へ帰ってたら、宿題をしました。