Whoops! Yep. I really have only on choice here, don't I.
Thx.
On Nov 17, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Peter Lin wrote:
I haven't tried running the rules, but the second format doesn't mean
the same thing as the first format.
normally, if I start a rule with a NOT CE, I have it match against a
literal value. Having a NOT CE that declares a binding isn't really
valid, if I'm not mistaken.
peter
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Hal Hildebrand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Which is more efficient:
(DOMAIN::planned-process (host-id ?host) (id ?pid) (plan ?plan))
(not (DOMAIN::host-association (host ?host)))
(not (DOMAIN::decommission-process (process ?pid)))
or
(not (DOMAIN::host-association (host ?host)))
(not (DOMAIN::decommission-process (process ?pid)))
(DOMAIN::planned-process (host-id ?host) (id ?pid) (plan ?plan))
Assuming that there are a large number of DOMAIN::planned-process
facts in
the system. Are they essentially equivalent?
Also, in general, is it more efficient to put the NOTs before or
after in
rule forms such as the above?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
