Probably only Ernest really knows, but others might have come across a paper discussing this topic; therefore to the list:
(1) Given that logical() may be applied to the initial subset of CE of some LHS, one might reason that it is the sum of all CEs on the LHS what implies a fact asserted on the RHS. Is there some (theoretical or practical) backing for the usefulness of permitting logical for a subset? (2) Assuming only situations where indeed all CEs are preconditions for one fact asserted on the RHS, then (asking rhetorically) what if I'd need to insert another fact which is not to be retracted when one of the CEs turns false? The scenario I'm imagining is that one fact should act as the logical consequence and the other fact should represent the occurrence of the event. So, the actual question: Wouldn't a variant of assert be more flexible, giving me the option of creating both on the same RHS, or is this scenario too outlandish for serious consideration? Disclaimer [;-)] I do not suggest any changes; I merely want to gain a better understanding of production rule systems. Thanks, Wolfgang -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]. --------------------------------------------------------------------
