I think Mark Egloff wrote: > Follow up question: > > >For now, the trick is to change the rule so that either the modified > >fact doesn't match anymore, or so that some -other- rule will also > >match, will fire first, and thus prevent the original rule from firing > >again immediately. > > > For me is still not clear how I could avoid the re-firing through > another rule which would fire first. I tried with (declare (salience > -100)) but it still does not work. > So could you please provide me a simple example from your description > above? This would be great.
It's not possible in every case. In your situation, where the new value is just an incremented integer, it's probably not a feasible approach. --------------------------------------------------------- Ernest Friedman-Hill Distributed Systems Research Phone: (925) 294-2154 Sandia National Labs FAX: (925) 294-2234 PO Box 969, MS 9012 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Livermore, CA 94550 http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
