[rules-dev] forall implementation by transformation?

[Wolfgang Laun]

OK, done; and few nits near by.

I may have to run local builds of the docs. Some things don't look
right in the docbook source.

Cheers
-W

On 16 November 2010 16:33, Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org> wrote:
> On 16/11/2010 14:32, Edson Tirelli wrote:
>>      Yes, the extra "not" in front of forall is a mistake and needs to
>> be removed. And yes, that is how drools and (AFAIK) all Rete based
>> engines implement it.
> W,
>
> Your permissions still working? Can you correct that?
>
> Mark
>>      Edson
>>
>> 2010/11/16 Wolfgang Laun<wolfgang.laun at gmail.com>:
>>> Expert manual:
>>>    not( forall( p1 p2 p3...)) is equivalent to writing not(p1 and
>>> not(and p2 p3...))
>>> I think this is incorrect; it should read
>>>    forall( p1 p2 p3...) is equivalent to writing not(p1 and not(and p2 p3...))
>>>
>>> Is this also the way forall is actually implemented?
>>>
>>> -W
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rules-dev mailing list
>>> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>