[rules-users] bug in 3.1M?
Olenin, Vladimir (MOH)
Vladimir.Olenin at moh.gov.on.ca
Fri Mar 9 16:49:13 EST 2007
Hi,
I've run across one thing. If I evaluate two columns within 'exists'
statement it throws compilation error if I don't connect two columns with
'and':
Exists (
Column (...)
Column (...)
)
With 'and' everything compiles OK:
Exists (
Column (...) and
Column (...)
)
Which is correct? Or probably both are not correct? From the 3.1M release
notes I can suggest there is another syntax (which works as well):
Exists (
Column (...) and
Exists Column (...)
)
I thought #1 should work OK.... I'm not sure what #2 might mean for DROOLS.
>From the rules & data I'm processing and results I'm getting it seems like
it works as #1 should, ie, checking existence of the tuple represented by
the columns within the 'exists' block....
Thanks,
Vlad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070309/e99c7f26/attachment.html
More information about the rules-users
mailing list