Michael was not saying to modify the facts in the consequence. Instead, he
was saying that you it would be _possible_ iterate through the facts after
the rules had fired and modify them.
You could do something like:
memory.fireAllRules(agendaFilter1);
// do something
// modify all facts so
Felipe,
Note that in this situation it seems a waste as your evaluating conditions
for rules you have no intention of firing. Its better to do away with the
agenda filters and have seperate rulebases and seperate working memories and
just assert the same facts into both working memories.
Lionel
hmmm... well perhaps the rule needs to be broken down, so that in one
consequence if modifies fact1, and in a different consequnce it modifies
fact2.
I am not sure how it can work otherwise. I assume there is more in your
consequence then just the modifies?
On 3/8/06, Felipe Piccolini [EMAIL
