Perhaps it could be done without yet another function, merely by adding a keyword to the (assert <fact>+) function?
I thought of (assert uncond <fact>+) Other ideas: "indep", "nodep", "firmly" (?!) Of course, any of these could be combined with "assert-" if another function is preferred to a variant. (A name starting with "assert-..." will keep it next to "assert" in the reference, which is desirable.) On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Ernest Friedman-Hill <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 26, 2010, at 10:41 PM, David Holz wrote: > >> 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. >> > > > David certainly hits the short answer dead on, here: the syntax and > semantics > of Jess's "logical" are directly modeled after CLIPS. > > I just confirmed that mplementing "assert-with-unconditional-support" would > be simple enough, but as things stand it can't be implemented externally. > Have a better name for this function, in case I decide to implement it? > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Ernest Friedman-Hill > Informatics & Decision Sciences, Sandia National Laboratories > PO Box 969, MS 9012, 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] -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]. --------------------------------------------------------------------
