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

[Edson Tirelli]

   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.

   []s
   Edson

2008/7/31 <ringsah at comcast.net>

> 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 at mac.com>
>
> > 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 at 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 at lists.jboss.org
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>


-- 
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20080731/b26c9e6b/attachment.html