"Adrian Paschke" <adrian.paschke@gmx.de> wrote on 21/07/2009 15:48:27: > > That was exactly the intention, to demonstrate that you can simulate > modify by a assert+retract combination. Then, the test case should be modified. The equivalent to: Forall ?X ( If ?X[ex:status -> "normal" ex:discount -> "10"] Then Do ( Modify(?X[ex:discount -> "0"]) would be (modulo the atomicity): Forall ?X ( If ?X[ex:status -> "normal" ex:discount -> "10"] Then Do ( Retract (?X[ex:discount -> "10"]) Assert (?X[ex:discount -> "0"]) But the questionraised by the original version of your test case remains: do we allow a frame about an object to be asserted after that object has been retracted? Cheers, Christian ILOG, an IBM Company 9 rue de Verdun 94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE Tel. +33 1 49 08 35 00 Fax +33 1 49 08 35 10 Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above: Compagnie IBM France Siège Social : Tour Descartes, 2, avenue Gambetta, La Défense 5, 92400 Courbevoie RCS Nanterre 552 118 465 Forme Sociale : S.A.S. Capital Social : 609.751.783,30 ? SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 02430Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2009 14:07:44 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 July 2009 14:07:44 GMT