Greetings to everybody on this list.
The general idea of this approach is to use WME references as slot
values. Retrieval of one fact will then permit efficient access to one
or more related facts, via some (constant) slots. I haven't found any
hint that this isn't permitted, but in the Jess
Jess Version 7.0p1 12/21/2006
Using return to break a (for) or (foreach) is documented behaviour. (It
isn't for (while), but perhaps this is just an omission in the
documentation.)
However:
;; Using return to exit from a loop confuses Jess.
;; Loops won't work any more. A (clear) appears to
On Jun 11, 2007, at 3:24 AM, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
The following Jess program uses working memory elements as slot
values, and this one doesn't fire the rule crossover, although I
think it should.
(defrule crossover
?e - (side (name ?ename) {occup == FALSE})
?w - (side (name
I think you'll find that any of the loops below will work fine in a
context where return has a defined meaning: in particular, in a
deffunction or the RHS of a defrule. I could weasel out of this by
calling this undefined behavior, as returning from a loop at the
prompt has no useful
16.70 and 16.71 probably shouldn't mention return at all; this was
indeed leading me up the garden path. (I was thinking of (for) and
(foreach) as some inline function definition plus call, and that's why
you can use return to break from them.)
Ernest Friedman-Hill wrote:
I think you'll
Hello,
I am trying to find an efficient way of making a Jess workflow that
work with facts that behave like singletons. Any approach I can think
of seems against the rule engine paradigm. Could you please advise me
on how to do this properly?
This is what I am considering:
* A set of
