[rules-users] Creating a long literal

[Aziz Boxwala]

You're right. The L causes a syntax error at compile time.
   
  Outside, an eval, I ran into range problems. I was trying to multiply a bunch of integers. The product was outside the range of an integer and I ended up with garbage. One way around it would have been to force the operands of the multiplication to a long.
   
  I don't have a unit test but I'll slap one together.
   
  --Aziz

Michael Neale <michael.neale at gmail.com> wrote:
  hmmm.. in an eval it *should* work - I assume there is a compile error that mentions the L ?

well this should not be a problem in 3.2, but for 3.0.x we can certainly look at it if you have a unit test.

A literal outside of an eval shouldn't be needed - as the type is inferenced from the facts automatically. 

  On 2/3/07, Aziz Boxwala <boxwala at yahoo.com> wrote:    Is there a way to create a long literal in a rule condition?
   
  Typing 30L results in a syntax error because of the L at the end. The error occurs even if I put this literal in eval.
   
  --Aziz

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users 



_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070207/9af65024/attachment.html