No, it's not inherited. Backchain-reactivity was never inheritable,
either. Should they both be?
On Dec 17, 2007, at 2:01 PM, Henrique Lopes Cardoso wrote:
Hi,
Is the slot-specific declaration not inherited by a sub-deftemplate?
I tested the following:
;;;
(deftemplate D
(declare (slot-specific TRUE))
(slot B))
(deftemplate D1 extends D)
(defrule R1
?d <- (D1)
=>
(printout t "R1 modifying..." crlf)
(modify ?d (B 3)))
(defmodule m)
(defrule m::R2
(declare (auto-focus TRUE))
?d <- (D1)
=>
(printout t "R2" crlf))
;;;
It turns out that rule R2 fires twice (before and after R1).
If D is used directly inside rules R1 and R2, slot-specific works
fine, and R2 fires only once, before R1 (because of auto-focus).
Henrique
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 owner-jess-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Friedman-Hill
Informatics & Decision Sciences Phone: (925) 294-2154
Sandia National Labs FAX: (925) 294-2234
PO Box 969, MS 9012 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Livermore, CA 94550 http://www.jessrules.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
