A possible solution to this specific type of problem is to define an object type as fire once only. for example, JESS has no-loop at the rule level, but it also supports declaring a deftemplate so it does the same thing.
if a person really wants to fire once, it should be explicitly declared. On 5/5/06, Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
quite often there isn't one size fits all. In such a case we should maybe try looking at supporting both. Peter Van Weert wrote: > We are actually writing a paper that, amongst other things, touches > the subject on how a LEAPS-like executed language (CHR) should/could > behave in these circumstances. We also had the fire-once versus > fire-many semantics debate at our research group, and the outcome is > still more or less undecided. Most agree that it should be fire-many > (we have a similar "resolution"), but some still believe fire-once is > the way to go (we have our own Alexander ;-)). Just to say: you are > not alone Alexander, but personally I'm happy to see the Drools people > reach a resolution towards the fire-many semantics! > > Greets, > Peter > > Michael Neale wrote:
