Re: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier

Ingomar, I tried this, and indeed that worked. I was surprised, as I thought "not" was meant more to mean that a fact inside its parentheses did not exist, rather than a logical negation, which is the way you used it in your example. However, if I do what you said, it does work exactly how I expected "not" alone to work. Thanks! -Hans -------------- Original message -------------- From: Ingomar Otter <iotter(a)mac.com&gt; > Hans, > If you change "not NegativeResult()" to "not (exits > NegativeResult())" this should result in the expected behaviour. > > Cheers, > Ingomar > > Am 31.07.2008 um 17:19 schrieb ringsah(a)comcast.net: > >> How is "not" supposed to work with insertLogical? Assume I have two >> different rules whose conditions are mutually exclusive, like the >> following: >> rule "Rule One" >> when >> not NegativeResult() >> then >> insertLogical(new ApplicantStatus("Approved")); >> end >> rule "Rule Two" >> when >> NegativeResult() >> then >> insertLogical(new ApplicantStatus("Denied")); >> end >> Assume that the above two rules are the only way an ApplicantStatus >> fact can be inserted into working memory. I would expect, after all >> rules are run, that it would be impossible for there to be one >> ApplicantStatus with "Approved" as its reason, and another with >> "Denied" as its reason, in the working memory. >> I would expect that, before any NegativeResult is inserted, that >> rule one could run, and insert an ApplicantStatus fact with an >> "Approved" reason. Then, after a NegativeResult is inserted, that >> rule two could run, and insert an ApplicantStatus fact with a >> "Denied" reason. At this point I would expect that the original >> ApplicantStatus fact, with an "Approved" reason, would be retracted, >> since the conditions under which it was inserted are no longer true. >> This is not what I am observing, however. I am finding >> ApplicantStatus facts with both reasons in working memory at the end >> of the rules run. Should "not" work as I expect with regard to >> inserting a fact via insertLogical()? Or is this a known limitation, >> or simply the way it is designed to work? >> Thanks, >> -Hans_______________________________________________ >> rules-users mailing list >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users