Btw, if you really want to know "why is it the way it is" with regards
to the logical syntax, you might try asking Gary Riley. CLIPS (afaik)
implemented the logical CE before Jess started, and Jess used CLIPS as
its starting point.
When I started getting into rule engines, I also noticed the dichotomy
of allowing separable logical & non-logical portions in the LHS, but not
being able to control logical vs ground on a per-assert basis in the
RHS. While your thought to use 2 separate rules would _generally_ work,
those would be two separate firings; anything happening in between might
muck around with your notion of fact consistency. A single firing
performing both types of assertions would not be susceptible to this.
This is quite an edge case, but still one that must be considered in
order to be robust, if the level of abstraction cannot be raised right
in the language itself.
--
David Holz
Director, Grindwork Corporation
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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].
--------------------------------------------------------------------
