[rules-users] forall is satisfied when there is nothing?

[Davide Sottara]

The "all and some" combination is actually quite popular and might
be implemented at some point. By no means it is the only possibility
to enhance the expressivity of the language:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/generalized-quantifiers/


On 01/08/2014 01:50 PM, Sonata wrote:
> Davide Sottara wrote
>> This is actually the way it is implemented internally, and no, I don't
>> think that
>> it would be appropriate to change it.
> Yes I agree, so may be we users actually do not need forall, but *every*,
> which just means forall and exists
> Now, look at it again:
>   when every Cloth( dried ) then collect()
> See how pretty it is, simple beauty, fully expressive, just like a sentence
> :)
> as oppose to
>   when forall Cloth ( dried ) AND exists Cloth() then collect() X(
>
> Nah, I guess people can live with that :P
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/forall-is-satisfied-when-there-is-nothing-tp4027553p4027598.html
> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>