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

[Wolfgang Laun]

If you really want to go out and collect the gladrags from the clothesline
you'd have to get a grip on them, i.e., their references. And that's why,
in the context presented by the OP, most applications that really
mean business will write this anyway:

   $s: Set( size > 0 ) from collect( Cloth(dried) )

-W



On 08/01/2014, Davide Sottara <dsotty at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>