difference with eresye

[zzj1213]

do you have a summary how the seresye is different from the original eresye ?

[ericbmerritt]

There are two big differences right now

1. The way negative rules are declared is different between seresye and eresye
2. Seresye uses serial, that is it explicitly does not use process internally where eresye does. This produces some minor differences in how rules are executed.

In the long run they will continue to diverge. Seresye has the goal that the engine will very small, self contained and mobile. It is intended that scaling for seresye be done by adding engines and organizing your rules/data to propagate from engine to engine. Eresye has the goal of a single engine processing arbitrarily large amounts of data. These two different design goals produce very different development directions.

[zzj1213]

thanks for the reply.

Seresye can be integrated into https://github.com/gleber/exat ?

[ericbmerritt]

I suspect strongly that it could, but not without changes to exat.

[gleber]

Actually I'm in progress of integrating seresye into eXat. Currently the culprit is lack of seresye:wait* calls. Thinking about a way to solve this

[ericbmerritt]

If I remember the way the wait calls work all calls in seresye are 'wait' calls more or less. Because no processes are used all rules are run to completion before they return. I don't know if that helps you or hurts you.

[anton-b]

Hello, sorry for bumping the old thread, but I didn't find a documentation on writing negative rules, other than engine check example. Could you please add a piece of documentation on this. Even reply in this thread will be fine. Thanks.