Hmm, in this case, it is definitively a bug. "not" IS the existential
qualifier, i.e., the constrary of exists. So it should be simply redundant
to write "not exists". Need to investigate that.
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.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Ingomar Otter <iotter(a)mac.com>
> If you change "not NegativeResult()" to "not (exits
> NegativeResult())" this should result in the expected behaviour.
> 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 observin! g, howe ver. 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 mailing list
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @