Yes, I do want to implement (forall). In fact, the way it will be
implemented is by making the alternate form you show work -- ie., for
all is just a shorthand. Right now, as the 6.0a2 announcement said,
some nesting of not, and, and or CEs is possible, but there are many
cases that don't work yet. They will all work by the time 6.0 final
comes out.
I think Ricardo Aler Mur wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Are there any plans to implement (forall (a ?x) (b ?s) (c ?x))? I've tried
> the equivalent form (not (and (a ?x) (not (and (b ?x) (c ?x))))) but it
> does not seem to work either.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ricardo.
> --------
> mailto: "Ricardo Aler Mur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> http://scalab.uc3m.es/~aler
>
---------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Friedman-Hill
Distributed Systems Research Phone: (925) 294-2154
Sandia National Labs FAX: (925) 294-2234
Org. 8920, MS 9012 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PO Box 969 http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov
Livermore, CA 94550
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the
list (use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
