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 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(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