Hi,
I was trying to test equality for lists seen as sets (elements with any
order).
Is there any direct function, or any solution simpler than this:
(bind ?list1 (list 1 2 3))
(bind ?list2 (list 3 2 1))
(and (= (length$ ?list1) (length$ ?list2)) (= (length$ (union$ ?list1
?list2)) (length$
Yes but this function won't do the job in general. Consider:
list1 = (1 1 2),
list2 = (2 2 3),
(union$ list1 list2) = (1 2 3)
Better to check whether intersection of the two lists have the same length
as their union.
all best,
Szymon
- Original Message -
From: Wolfgang Laun [EMAIL
Given the precondition (as Henrique wrote) that the lists are sets you
don't have to consider the general case.
-W
Szymon Klarman wrote:
Yes but this function won't do the job in general. Consider:
list1 = (1 1 2),
list2 = (2 2 3),
(union$ list1 list2) = (1 2 3)
Better to check whether
Yes, I had noticed that.
Thank you all.
By the way, is it heavy to have such a test in a rule's LHS?
Let me be more specific. I am trying to make a kind of refraction
across multiple rules. The point is to prevent two rules from firing on
the same facts. For this I use a special ordered fact
Hi,I'm having a problem when I batch two different .clp files that require the
same third .clp file.
File1.clp
Some defclasses
File2.clp
require file1Some rules using file1 defclasses
File3.clp
require file 1
Some other rules using file1 defclasses
rete.batch(file2);
rete.batch(file3);
