>It would make my life a lot easier if instead BAYES_999 were an additional >rule.
That is, if BAYES_999 fired *in addition to* BAYES_99. > I use several meta rules that include BAYES_99 and now I'm having to >go rewrite those rules to include (BAYES_99 || BAYES_999). Which raises the question-- is there a performance hit for making meta rules include other meta rules? That is: is meta _DP_BAYES_VBAD (BAYES_99 || BAYES_999) meta DP_FRM_INFO_BAYES_VBD DP_FRM_INFO && _DP_BAYES_VBAD any worse from a performance standpoint than meta DP_FRM_INFO_BAYES_VBD DP_FRM_INFO && (BAYES_99 || BAYES_999) under normal conditions? -- Dave Pooser Cat-Herder-in-Chief, Pooserville.com "...Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in one pretty and well-preserved piece, but to slide across the finish line broadside, thoroughly used up, worn out, leaking oil, and shouting GERONIMO!!!" -- Bill McKenna
