Actually, I have a long term JIRA open on enhancing "no-loop" behaviour which overlaps with this. The idea is to allow people to specify conditions which mean that a certain firing (rule + tuples/non existence) only ever happens one (optionally). So its an issue close to my heart...
On 5/6/06, Peter Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A possible solution to this specific type of problem is to define an object type as fire once only. for example, JESS has no-loop at the rule level, but it also supports declaring a deftemplate so it does the same thing. if a person really wants to fire once, it should be explicitly declared. On 5/5/06, Mark Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > quite often there isn't one size fits all. In such a case we should > maybe try looking at supporting both. > Peter Van Weert wrote: > > We are actually writing a paper that, amongst other things, touches > > the subject on how a LEAPS-like executed language (CHR) should/could > > behave in these circumstances. We also had the fire-once versus > > fire-many semantics debate at our research group, and the outcome is > > still more or less undecided. Most agree that it should be fire-many > > (we have a similar "resolution"), but some still believe fire-once is > > the way to go (we have our own Alexander ;-)). Just to say: you are > > not alone Alexander, but personally I'm happy to see the Drools people > > reach a resolution towards the fire-many semantics! > > > > Greets, > > Peter > > > > Michael Neale wrote: >
