I think [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Am I missussing the "logical" statement??? >
A little bit. A pattern like (logical (not (X))) will match just like a regular "not". If the rule asserts facts, they will be logically dependent on the absence of (X) facts. If an (X) fact is asserted, those other facts will be retracted. If the (X) fact is then removed, those other facts won't magically reappear, but the rule may be eligible to fire again, and it could reassert those facts. Get it? So (logical) can remove facts, but it will never re-create them. --------------------------------------------------------- Ernest Friedman-Hill Science and Engineering PSEs 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
