[rules-dev] modify( expr ) {....}

[Wolfgang Laun]

If the "documented behaviour" is "expression is evaluated once" you cannot
deviate silently and must flag an error. If you say that it is
"implementation defined" you can
do what you like. Either way, you *must* document it ;-)

Wolfgang

On 7 April 2011 16:36, Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org> wrote:
> On 07/04/2011 07:15, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
>
> The main point I was trying to make here was that very complex expressions
> are very, very rare.
>
> An acceptable compromise would be to analyse what can be done without
> busting a vein, and to flag anything anthing else as an error ("expression
> too complicated") and document the way around, presumably a user-defined
> variable where the user provides the type. And if the expressions is
really
> so complex, this might even imrove readability ;-)
>
> MVEL returns Object as the return type if it can't figure out what it is.
So
> that could be possability. So on Object as the return type we use the expr
> on each and every setter. Good idea. Do we need to throw an exception or
> just default to re-evaluating the expr for each setter?
>
> Mark
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-dev/attachments/20110407/bc3a3b96/attachment.html