No, it's not inherited. Backchain-reactivity was never inheritable,
either. Should they both be?
On Dec 17, 2007, at 2:01 PM, Henrique Lopes Cardoso wrote:
Hi,
Is the slot-specific declaration not inherited by a sub-deftemplate?
I tested the following:
;;;
(deftemplate D
(declare
I would expect them to be.
Henrique
Ernest Friedman-Hill wrote:
No, it's not inherited. Backchain-reactivity was never inheritable,
either. Should they both be?
On Dec 17, 2007, at 2:01 PM, Henrique Lopes Cardoso wrote:
Hi,
Is the slot-specific declaration not inherited by a
If you can't delete the row facts, then either add a processed slot
to them so you can modify them to mark them done, then match not
done on the left hand side of the rule, and remove the no-loop
declaration; or otherwise use an auxilliary, temporary fact to
indicate that a given row fact has been
Hi Ernest:
Thank you for your answers. I tried (no-loop TRUE) before and I got f-1
(MAIN::row (y 0) (data b)) as result.
The result I want to get is f-1 (MAIN::row (y 0) (data a b))
Do you know how should I change the rule for this to happen without
retracting ?word fact. (i.e., other rules
slot-specific means that modifications to slots that are not matched
in the conditions of a rule won't cause the rule to be activated. But
this rule matches the data slot, and modifies that same slot, so
it's an infinite loop -- and it's supposed to be.
If you want to break this infinite loop
