|
Replies:
1
-
Pages:
1
-
Last Post:
Nov 18, 2004 3:55 PM
by: ejfried
|
|
|
Posts:
6
Registered:
10/30/04
|
|
|
|
A quest ion about content on rule defined in 194
Posted:
Nov 18, 2004 9:43 AM
|
|
Shouldn't (not (MAIN::ask ?)) be (not (MAIN::ask ?id)) in the following snippet?
(defrule trigger::supply-answers
(declare (auto-focus TRUE))
(MAIN::need-answer (ident ?id))
(not (MAIN::answer (ident ?id)))
(not (MAIN::ask ?))
=>
(assert (MAIN::ask ?id))
(return))
|
|
Posts:
325
Registered:
12/19/03
|
|
|
|
Re: A quest ion about content on rule defined in 194
Posted:
Nov 18, 2004 3:55 PM
in response to:
rvprasad
|
|
Because a blank variable is used -- or more generally, because ?id is not used -- any MAIN::ask fact will block the rule from firing, so that only one can be asserted at a time. If ?id was used, then multiple MAIN::ask facts could be asserted simultaneously. Although that might still work, it isn't what I had in mind when the ask module and the backward chaining support machinery was designed. You could certainly give it a try and see what happens. I can't think of an advantage to having multiple MAIN::ask facts at the same time, and I can think of a few minor disdvantages -- primarily increased memory usage.
|
|
|
Legend
|
|
Gold: 300
+
pts
|
|
Silver: 100
- 299
pts
|
|
Bronze: 25
- 99
pts
|
|
Manning Author
|
|
Manning Staff
|
|
