This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
2020-05-03
Channels
- # aleph (6)
- # announcements (4)
- # babashka (73)
- # beginners (117)
- # calva (25)
- # chlorine-clover (59)
- # cider (21)
- # clara (3)
- # cljdoc (8)
- # cljs-dev (54)
- # cljsrn (15)
- # clojure (65)
- # clojure-france (5)
- # clojure-spec (3)
- # clojure-uk (13)
- # clojurescript (79)
- # conf-proposals (1)
- # conjure (17)
- # core-logic (11)
- # datomic (21)
- # fulcro (82)
- # graalvm (11)
- # helix (7)
- # jobs-discuss (11)
- # joker (2)
- # juxt (3)
- # local-first-clojure (1)
- # luminus (5)
- # nrepl (61)
- # off-topic (12)
- # pathom (70)
- # re-frame (3)
- # reitit (3)
- # rum (1)
- # shadow-cljs (58)
- # sql (1)
- # tools-deps (26)
- # xtdb (3)
To: > As far as I have seen, conditions apply to > individual facts, and I'm not sure if I can put in another > condition line with just boolean logic. Can I? yes, clara represents this as an underlying join of the two facts. You could also do this in a "test" condition: http://www.clara-rules.org/docs/expressions/ For: > Also, since, as you can see, I'm retracting the Turn fact > that led to the new facts being inserted, because now the > stage of the turn is the next stage, and so the inserted > facts will be instantly retracted, right? So how should I > think about it? As you alluded to, truth maintenance(http://www.clara-rules.org/docs/truthmaint/) would kick in when retracting the fact, meaning that this rule would likely cause a loop to occur. I've never really thought about modeling game state management in clara, but i would wonder if the retract is necessary.