Re: Append solution using pure production rules

Francois Bry wrote:

>Some brands of production rule languages, as they have been described in
>the literature over the last 2 to 3 decades, significantly restrict the
>re-firing of a rule that has already fired. In extreme cases, a rule can
>only fire once. 
>  
>
This is especially true in the business rule market, where far more 
users are likely to write a rule like
"if an employee earns more than 50000 then give a 10% raise"
that refires endlessly than there are users seeking to write a recursive 
ruleset to do appends.

However, a tool or language that supports a "fire at most once" rule 
could use a "control fact" to implement the desired behavior.  It's not 
necessarily the case that the RIF needs to support "fire at most once".

>there are no
>general agreement on a common semantics for alll production rule
>languages
>  
>
But can we get agreement within our working group?  Who here disagrees 
with the PRR, and why?