Re: JESS: Strange Jess / Eclipse crash
I think Matthew Hutchinson wrote: [Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...] G'day everyone, This is more of an Eclipse question, however, I only get this error when trying to open CLP files. Eclipse with Jess has been working fine for weeks, and now suddenly Eclipse completely closes when i double-click a CLP file to edit it in eclipse. I have not changed any classpath stuff, or anytihng else. I really need to this to work... :-( Your 30-day trial version of Jess has expired. You can get an academic license at no cost by contacting Craig Smith, [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Ernest Friedman-Hill Advanced Software Research Phone: (925) 294-2154 Sandia National LabsFAX: (925) 294-2234 PO Box 969, MS 9012 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Livermore, CA 94550 http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov 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]
Re: JESS: Strange Jess / Eclipse crash
I think Matthew Hutchinson wrote: [Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...] Hi, Actually, I have already got the full version from Craig and it works fine. Also, my classpath and eclipse stuff is all set to the full version jar file also. Good, but be that as it may, one can still clearly see the obfuscated class names of the trial version JAR file in the stack trace you sent in your earlier message. Find all copies of jess.jar on your machine, and replace them with known good ones from the licensed distribution. - Ernest Friedman-Hill Advanced Software Research Phone: (925) 294-2154 Sandia National LabsFAX: (925) 294-2234 PO Box 969, MS 9012 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Livermore, CA 94550 http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov 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]
Re: JESS: Checking if a fact exists
I think [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (defrule rule1 (x1 value1 ?cf1) (x2 value2 ?cf2) (x3 value3 ?cf3) = (assert (x3 value3 (min ?cf1 ?cf2 ?cf3))) Perhaps this rule should retract or modify the existing fact, rather than asserting a second one, as this does? (defrule rule2 (x1 value1 ?cf1) (x2 value2 ?cf2) = (assert (x3 value3 (min ?cf1 ?cf2))) ) And this one should surely include a pattern like (not (x3 value3 ?)) or otherwise it will fire whether there is an x3 fact or not. By this way, the number of rules of the system would duplicate. Is there a better solution? You want to do one thing under one set of conditions, and another thing under other conditions, so this really does warrant having two separate rules. Jess will notice the similarities, by the way, and share code in the Rete network for these two rules. - Ernest Friedman-Hill Advanced Software Research Phone: (925) 294-2154 Sandia National LabsFAX: (925) 294-2234 PO Box 969, MS 9012 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Livermore, CA 94550 http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov 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]
