So I guess the question becomes: is it more effecient to use salience?
Again, I'm assuming it is as in my case it's likely that >80% of the logical assertions will be "rolled-back" once the other rules have fired.
On Thu, 27 May 2004 16:48:59 -0700 (PDT), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think Simon Harris wrote:
Do/can I somehow use logical? I don't believe it's possible to use logical
with not.
You can, actually. (logical (not (foo))) acts as you'd expect.
Or, is there another solution I've not thought of?
I'm afraid I didn't understand the question, so perhaps there is.
BTW, I think I'm beginning to build up a FAQ here ;-) I may have to put it
up on the website.
Contributions to the existing FAQ would be welcomed.
--------------------------------------------------------- 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Simon Harris RedHill Consulting, Pty. Ltd. 12/55-67 Batman Street West Melbourne VIC 3003 +61 417 505 611 http://www.redhillconsulting.com.au
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
