Re: RIF Core shortened

I think we don't have to distinguish "creation" vs. "modification" for 
unconditional conclusions (aka facts).  It seems the worst thing that 
happens is we have to translate

_o # eg:class1
_o # eg:class2

The translator can always look ahead at *all* the facts before deciding 
what to do.  In this case, the translator searches for a constructor 
(taking no arguments) that can create an instance of eg:class1 *and* 
eg:class2.  Because we allow # only in unconditional conclusions, this 
kind of lookahead is always easy and possible.

Michael Kifer wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:06:02 +0100
> "Patrick Albert" <palbert@ilog.fr> wrote:
>
>   
>> Right, this task stretches us a little too much... :-/ 
>>
>> I am happy to support your proposal "allow # and ## in Core in rule
>> conditions and *unconditional* rule conclusions" as long as in the
>> "unconditional conclusions" we limit ourselves to the creation of new
>> objects, not including the modification of the class of an already
>> existing object. 
>>     
>
> The latter (creation vs modification) is not possible to define in the core.
>