Re: JESS: Nested not conditional element with slots referring to facts

It's definitely a bug, and no patch has been released yet. To work  
around it, you could add an extra pattern to the rule right before the  
test and after the "or":

(defrule r3
        (s)
        (or (not (a))
            (and ?x <- (a)
                 (b ?x) ) )
        (initial-fact)
        (test (= qwe asd))
=> ...

Alternatively you could move the test before the "or".



On Sep 7, 2010, at 5:10 AM, Henrique Lopes Cardoso wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Is there any update on this issue?
> Since I did not get any answer to my last question in the previous
> e-mail (below), I am asking again:
> - Is there a way to stop Jess from transforming rules and keep the
> original coding, possibly with some loss of performance?
> Or even better: is the bug solved?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Henrique
>
>
>
> Henrique Lopes Cardoso wrote:
>> Hi again,
>>
>> In the sequel of this problem, I've fond another (possibly related)
>> situation where the rule does not seem to compile correctly.
>> I managed to simplify the example to the following rule:
>>
>>    (defrule r3
>>        (s)
>>        (or (not (a))
>>            (and ?x <- (a)
>>                 (b ?x) ) )
>>        (test (= qwe asd))   ; stupid test, just to expose the problem
>>        =>
>>        (printout t "tssss!" crlf) )
>>
>> Using (ppdefrule), we see that this rule compiles to:
>>
>>    (defrule MAIN::r3
>>       (or
>>         (and
>>           (s)
>>           (not (a)))
>>         (and
>>           (s)
>>           ?x <- (a)
>>           (and (b ?x)
>>            (test (= qwe asd)))))
>>       =>
>>       (printout t "tssss!" crlf))
>>
>> Therefore, the test is not done in the first branch of (or).
>>
>> Is there a way to stop Jess from transforming rules and keep the
>> original coding, possibly with some loss of performance? The point  
>> here
>> is to avoid the apparently buggy transformations that are being made.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Henrique
>>
>>
>> Ernest Friedman-Hill wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed, the rule doesn't seem to compile correctly; the two ?x's are
>>> not merged.
>>>
>>> Jess> (ppdefrule r)
>>> "(defrule MAIN::r
>>>   (initial-fact)
>>>   (not ?x <- (and ?x <- (a ?_021__blank_2) (not (b ?_0022_x))))
>>>   =>
>>>   (printout t \"sure thing!\" crlf))"
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 20, 2010, at 4:04 PM, Henrique Lopes Cardoso wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Actually, asserts do work, because (deffacts) are added to working
>>>> memory by a call to (reset). This is wy I am calling (facts) before
>>>> (run), to make sure facts are in working memory as intended.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I tried (assert)ing them one by one and it still does not  
>>>> work
>>>> as expected.
>>>>
>>>> It must be something else.
>>>>
>>>> Henrique
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users  
> [email protected]'
> in the BODY of a message to [email protected], NOT to the list
> (use your own address!) List problems? Notify [email protected] 
> .
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Friedman-Hill
Informatics & Decision Sciences          Phone: (925) 294-2154
Sandia National Labs
PO Box 969, MS 9012                            [email protected]
Livermore, CA 94550                             http://www.jessrules.com





--------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [email protected]'
in the BODY of a message to [email protected], NOT to the list
(use your own address!) List problems? Notify [email protected].
--------------------------------------------------------------------