I am trying to create rule which compares in this way:
CLIPS> (assert (flower red yellow))
CLIPS> (assert (flower blue yellow))
CLIPS> (assert (isflower yellow))
CLIPS> (defrule has_color2
(isflower ?x)
(eq flower red ?x flower red ?)
=>
(printout t "has property" ?x crlf))
CLIPS> (run)
So my question is this ; How to compare a variable against a set of facts to check if theres any match ? The alone ? mark on the 6th line is where I want to insert a wildcard in a way it's done. Whole line is inaccurate probably.
CLIPS> (assert (flower red yellow))
<Fact-1>
CLIPS> (assert (flower blue yellow))
<Fact-2>
CLIPS> (assert (isflower yellow))
<Fact-3>
CLIPS>
(defrule has_color2
(isflower ?x)
(flower ? ?x)
=>
(printout t "has property " ?x crlf))
CLIPS> (agenda)
0 has_color2: f-3,f-2
0 has_color2: f-3,f-1
For a total of 2 activations.
CLIPS> (facts)
f-1 (flower red yellow)
f-2 (flower blue yellow)
f-3 (isflower yellow)
For a total of 3 facts.
CLIPS> (run)
has property yellow
has property yellow
CLIPS>
Related
How could i make a rule that test if all facts from a deftemplate but one matches an specific condition?
Example: with
(deftemplate person (field name)(field hair-color))
having several blonde people, only one is not
get
(printout t "Only " ?name-not-blond " is not blonde" crlf)
CLIPS (6.4 2/9/21)
CLIPS>
(deftemplate person
(slot name)
(slot hair-color))
CLIPS>
(defrule only-one-not-blonde
(person (name ?name-not-blonde)
(hair-color ~blonde))
(not (person (name ~?name-not-blonde)
(hair-color ~blonde)))
=>
(println "Only " ?name-not-blonde " is not blonde."))
CLIPS>
(deffacts initial
(person (name Sue) (hair-color blonde))
(person (name Frank) (hair-color blonde))
(person (name Josh) (hair-color brown)))
CLIPS> (reset)
CLIPS> (facts)
f-1 (person (name Sue) (hair-color blonde))
f-2 (person (name Frank) (hair-color blonde))
f-3 (person (name Josh) (hair-color brown))
For a total of 3 facts.
CLIPS> (agenda)
0 only-one-not-blonde: f-3,*
For a total of 1 activation.
CLIPS> (assert (person (name Anne) (hair-color red)))
<Fact-4>
CLIPS> (agenda)
CLIPS>
Let's consider the next trivial template:
(deftemplate person (ssn ?s))
I want to check that, if a person "is registered", there are no other person with same ssn, however, I've tried with something like:
(defrule repeated-person
(person (ssn ?s1))
(person (ssn ?s2))
(test (= ?s1 ?s2))
=>
(printout t "No, no, no..." clrf))
or even,
(defrule repeated-person
(person (ssn ?s))
(person (ssn ?s))
=>
(printout t "No, no, no..." clrf))
but it didn't work.
How can I accomplish something like that?
By default, you can't create duplicates of facts:
CLIPS (6.31 2/3/18)
CLIPS>
(deftemplate person
(slot SSN))
CLIPS> (assert (person (SSN 123-45-6789)))
<Fact-1>
CLIPS> (facts)
f-0 (initial-fact)
f-1 (person (SSN 123-45-6789))
For a total of 2 facts.
CLIPS> (assert (person (SSN 123-45-6789)))
FALSE
CLIPS> (facts)
f-0 (initial-fact)
f-1 (person (SSN 123-45-6789))
For a total of 2 facts.
CLIPS>
You can change this behavior using the set-fact-duplication function:
CLIPS> (set-fact-duplication TRUE)
FALSE
CLIPS> (assert (person (SSN 123-45-6789)))
<Fact-2>
CLIPS> (facts)
f-0 (initial-fact)
f-1 (person (SSN 123-45-6789))
f-2 (person (SSN 123-45-6789))
For a total of 3 facts.
CLIPS>
You can then write a rule which checks to see if there are two different facts with the same SSN:
CLIPS>
(defrule repeated-person
?f1 <- (person (SSN ?ss))
?f2 <- (person (SSN ?ss))
(test (< (fact-index ?f1) (fact-index ?f2)))
=>
(printout t "Duplicated SSN " ?ss crlf))
CLIPS> (agenda)
0 repeated-person: f-1,f-2
For a total of 1 activation.
CLIPS>
Since each fact has a unique fact index, the comparison in the test conditional element ensures that the facts matching the first and second patterns are not the same.
If we add another person with an identical SSN, we'll get multiple activations of the rule:
CLIPS> (assert (person (SSN 123-45-6789)))
<Fact-3>
CLIPS> (agenda)
0 repeated-person: f-1,f-3
0 repeated-person: f-2,f-3
0 repeated-person: f-1,f-2
For a total of 3 activations.
CLIPS>
We can dynamically assign a unique id to each created fact which allows to create "duplicate" facts even when facts duplication is disabled:
CLIPS> (clear)
CLIPS> (set-fact-duplication FALSE)
TRUE
CLIPS>
(deftemplate person
(slot id (default-dynamic (gensym*)))
(slot SSN))
CLIPS> (assert (person (SSN 123-45-6789)))
<Fact-1>
CLIPS> (assert (person (SSN 123-45-6789)))
<Fact-2>
CLIPS> (assert (person (SSN 123-45-6789)))
<Fact-3>
CLIPS> (facts)
f-0 (initial-fact)
f-1 (person (id gen1) (SSN 123-45-6789))
f-2 (person (id gen2) (SSN 123-45-6789))
f-3 (person (id gen3) (SSN 123-45-6789))
For a total of 4 facts.
CLIPS>
We can then create a rule which prints a single message regardless of the number of people with the same SSN:
CLIPS>
(defrule repeated-person
(person (id ?id) (SSN ?ssn))
(not (person (id ?id2&:(< (str-compare ?id2 ?id) 0)) (SSN ?ssn)))
(exists (person (id ~?id) (SSN ?ssn)))
=>
(printout t "Duplicated SSN " ?ssn crlf))
CLIPS> (agenda)
0 repeated-person: f-1,*,*
For a total of 1 activation.
CLIPS> (run)
Duplicated SSN 123-45-6789
CLIPS>
Using the Clips programming language, what is the correct "not equals" syntax?
This is the not symbol ~
Clips Documentation
The ~ constraint is part of the pattern matching language. The neq function is for use within expressions. Both can be used with values of any type. The != and <> functions can only be used with numeric arguments.
CLIPS> (clear)
CLIPS>
(defrule rule-1
(color ?color&~red&~blue)
=>
(printout t "rule-1: " ?color crlf))
CLIPS>
(defrule rule-2
(color ?color)
(test (and (neq ?color red) (neq ?color blue)))
=>
(printout t "rule-2: " ?color crlf))
CLIPS> (assert (color green) (color blue) (color yellow) (color red))
<Fact-4>
CLIPS> (run)
rule-1: yellow
rule-2: yellow
rule-1: green
rule-2: green
CLIPS> (neq 2 3)
TRUE
CLIPS> (neq a b)
TRUE
CLIPS> (!= 2 3)
TRUE
CLIPS> (!= a b)
[ARGACCES5] Function != expected argument #1 to be of type integer or float
CLIPS>
Is there a way for me to get the fact ID of a fact that I just asserted in the RHS of a rule? Something along the lines of
?f <- (assert (new-fact))
CLIPS>
(defrule example
=>
(bind ?f (assert (new-fact)))
(bind ?i (fact-index ?f))
(printout t "The fact index is " ?i crlf))
CLIPS> (reset)
CLIPS> (run)
The fact index is 1
CLIPS> (facts)
f-0 (initial-fact)
f-1 (new-fact)
For a total of 2 facts.
CLIPS>
does anybody have any idea why this:
(defrule initx
(declare(salience 90))
=>
(assert (blabla 10))
)
(defrule gigel
(declare(salience 89))
=>
(printout t "test" crlf)
)
is not working?
When I delete first rule it works.
Thank you.
What's the behavior that you're seeing? The behavior of the gigel rule is the same regardless of whether the initx rule is present or not.
CLIPS>
(defrule initx
(declare(salience 90))
=>
(assert (blabla 10)))
CLIPS>
(defrule gigel
(declare(salience 89))
=>
(printout t "test" crlf))
CLIPS> (reset)
CLIPS> (run)
test
CLIPS> (facts)
f-0 (initial-fact)
f-1 (blabla 10)
For a total of 2 facts.
CLIPS> (clear)
CLIPS>
(defrule gigel
(declare(salience 89))
=>
(printout t "test" crlf))
CLIPS> (reset)
CLIPS> (run)
test
CLIPS> (facts)
f-0 (initial-fact)
For a total of 1 fact.
CLIPS>