>From the wish-list department: I'd sure like it if, in the action
portion of a rule definition, I could define new rules. Sort of like
this:
(defrule i-am-a-rule
(condition 1)
(condition 2)
=>
(defrule subrule-1
(condition)
=>
(action))
(action)
)
or
(defrule subrule-2 extends i-am-a-rule
(condition)
=>
(action))
When you're dealing with a lot of rules, this kind of thing can really
help set up more complex nested if-then-if-then type stuff.
In addition, it would be cool (don't you love hearing that ;) if you
could do this, instead of using salience:
(defrule rule-3
(declare (overrides i-am-a-rule))
(condition)
=>
(action))
The effect of that would be that for any given set of facts, if both
rule-3 and i-am-a-rule are activated, rule-3 fires, eliminating the
activation of i-am-a-rule.
For a general and somewhat more specific rule that can match on the same
set of facts, there is no way to avoid using salience to perform the
discrimination, unless you break the matching up and use "signaling"
facts. This is somewhat undesirable.
RJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
