Please pardon me if I missed part of this discussion by overzealous email deletions (holiday email cleanup), but is this property more appropriately attached to the fact, rather than the rule (as is "logical")? In the example below, the "count" template could be marked so that changes to it won't re-activate any rules. This seems to match the intuition that the "count" template below is a different _kind_ of fact than the "x" one.
On 1/5/03 4:01 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But you seem to be ignoring the whole problem, the "refractoriness" > problem, I think you might call it. Show me how, using Jess's current > semantics, you might accomplish what this rule (using the new feature) > does: > >>> (defrule count-x-facts >>> (declare (one-shot TRUE)) >>> (x) >>> ?count <- (count (x ?n)) >>> => >>> (modify ?count (x (+ ?n 1)))) > > (keeping in mind that the "x" template has forty-seven slots that are > constantly being modified by unrelated rules) and then explain to me > why it's better. > > I think James C. Owen wrote: >> OK, now that we're off and running, one-shot seems like it would work for a >> limited set of circumstances. However, if we use goal-oriented programming >> then we don't need a special set of rules or objects. If we have a specific >> goal and the goal exists THEN we do either one or two things: >> >> 1. If we want to know only that there exists at least one instance of a set >> of circumstances, then the RHS would retract that goal and either assert >> another or let the last goal have predominance on the conflict resolution >> table. >> >> 2. If we want to do something for all of the instances, don't retract the >> goal. Just let nature take it's course and do the same thing for all >> instances of that particular situation. >> >> As has been stated so many times, "Folks, this stuff ain't rocket science. >> It's just logic. And if Psychologists, Business Analysts and Doctors with >> not >> computer training at all can understand this and write decent programs (after >> a year or two of working with it) then any half-fast programmer SURELY can >> understand how to adjust to a given set of circumstances for a certain set of >> rules." Well, actually, that's my favorite quote. It follows the old KISS >> principle. >> >> SDG >> jco >> > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Ernest Friedman-Hill > Distributed Systems Research Phone: (925) 294-2154 > Sandia National Labs FAX: (925) 294-2234 > PO Box 969, MS 9012 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Livermore, CA 94550 http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]' > in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list > (use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- Prof. Michael Stiber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computing and Software Systems http://faculty.washington.edu/stiber University of Washington, Bothell tel: +1-425-352-5280 Box 358534, 18115 Campus Way NE fax: +1-425-352-5216 Bothell, WA 98011-8246 USA -------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]' in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list (use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
