Re: [rules-users] Non short circuit ANDing

I am curious about this, too, and the conclusion that I came too was that in this situation I should structure the rules in two phases and generate new facts that tell me how to proceed: Phase 1: Validate the presence or lack of presence of things that I value. Eg: did the user provide a name and age that is old enough. Assert either facts that show validity, or notices explaining the failure. Phase 2: If enough validation facts are present then proceed with the work in the rules. At the end, show all notices that were asserted This is one idea. On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:42 AM, mp <meitreyi.panchmia(a)morganstanley.com&gt; wrote: -- Grant Rettke | ACM, AMA, COG, IEEE grettke(a)acm.org | http://www.wisdomandwonder.com/ Wisdom begins in wonder. ((λ (x) (x x)) (λ (x) (x x)))