Hi,
I am doing some experiments with regards to truth maintenance.
Assume that I have a rule like:
(defrule simpleRule (aaa) =(bbb))
Asserting an (aaa) fact and (run)ning the rule will result in a new fact
(bbb).
Nevertheless, retracting (aaa) will not retract (bbb) as well, and I found
it
I don't see where page 139 says anything about dependencies between
facts. It does talk about how the state of the *agenda* is maintained
-- the list of rules that haven't fired yet. But the effects of rules
that fired in the past are not, by default, undone.
By default, there's no
It's been mentioned that It Would Be Cool (R) to integrate Jess and
Clojure; I think that would ultimately have to mean that all of Jess's
Lisp(esque) interpreter would be thrown out and replaced by Clojure's
REP loop, Jess constructs would be defined as special forms in
Clojure, etc. It
I've also pondered the idea of clojure + jess with others.
The benefits of doing full LISP is powerful, even if a significant
percent of the users will never use features beyond the existing CLIPS
functionality. The other benefit I see with clojure is the
transactional memory. The STM model is
cognitive dissonace ? Now I have a name for all my problems.
On Jun 3, 2011, at 10:02 AM, Ernest Friedman-Hill wrote:
Not to mention the cognitive dissonance of working with two similar-looking
but uncomfortably different languages at once.
Thanks for the reply, the logical keyword works indeed.
As for page 139, i thought passing of the remove tokens down the rete is
meaningful in the context of logical retraction.
--Oli
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Ernest Friedman-Hill ejfr...@sandia.govwrote:
I don't see where page 139
Begin forwarded message:From: gregory richardson g...@rcn.comDate: June 3, 2011 2:56:08 PM CDTTo: jess-us...@sandia.comSubject: Fwd: I (temporarily) give up - jess jmsBegin forwarded message:From: gregory richardson g...@rcn.comDate: June 3, 2011 1:58:53 PM CDTTo: jess-us...@sandia.xomSubject: I
