You don't need to nest 'not' in 'not' as we support 'exists'.
So you can have a Column inside a 'not' or 'exists' but nothing else.
3.1 will allow fully nested structures.
Mark
Russ Egan wrote:
I think I saw this, but now I can't find it.
3.0 won't support nesting "not" inside "and" and "or", nor will it
support nesting "and" and "or" inside "not". Is that correct?
Is the suggested workaround to establish the positive fact in wm, then
have a not rule for that fact at a lower salience, like:
rule "1"
when
(a and b) or c
then // do something wormy
assert(worms_are_good);
end
rule "2" salience -10
when
not worms_are_good
then
// do something unwormy
end
I guess a similiar work around can be done for nesting not inside
and/or: have a rule that asserts the "not fact", then use the presence
of the "not fact" in another rule.
I'm coming across this a lot, since there is no "else". I understand
and agree with the argument against "else", but it seems inversing
rules is not always straightforward without nesting and/or/not.
