-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 12:57 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: JESS: Proposed feature
> >
> >
> > I think James C. Owen wrote:
> > > Ernest:
> > >
> > > Le
al Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 12:57 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: JESS: Proposed feature
>
>
> I think James C. Owen wrote:
> > Ernest:
> >
> > Let me see if I can under
I think James C. Owen wrote:
> Ernest:
>
> Let me see if I can understand what we're actually saying here: As written
> below, since ?fact is being modified in the RHS of the rule then the rule will
> be placed on the agenda as available to be fired again, even though the
> recursion principle wo
Ernest:
Let me see if I can understand what we're actually saying here: As written
below, since ?fact is being modified in the RHS of the rule then the rule will
be placed on the agenda as available to be fired again, even though the
recursion principle would otherwise have removed the rule from
I think Thomas Gentsch wrote:
>
> What I would find favourable is a modified behavior in a way, that a
> rule gets activated by a modified fact *only* if a slot applicable to
> the rule had been changed...
Yes, this one has been brought up quite a bit. I've unfortunately not
been able to think of
Hi there,
I personally think that this actually works around the basic idea of a
fact/rule system like Jess - a rule fires whenever all its conditions
are met and this will be tested whenever the facts in question are
modified. In other words - the behavior as it is right now is absolutely
correc
Hello ejfried,
Sunday, January 05, 2003, 6:20:37 AM, you wrote:
ecsg> Hi Folks,
ecsg> Very often, people post questions equivalent to the following to this
ecsg> list:
ecsg> "Why does this cause an infinite loop?
ecsg> (defrule my-rule
ecsg> ?fact <- (fact (slot ?x))
ecsg>
