RE: [rules-dev] sugar
by Olenin, Vladimir (MOH)
Don't have any antlr experience, but I'd say that would be a very valuable
addition - probably more BAs would be able to pick it up this way (without
having to fallback on custom DSL)
Vlad
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor
Sent: 20 March 2007 15:54
To: Rules Dev List
Subject: Re: [rules-dev] sugar
Could also allow:
Cheese( name = Person( location == "london").favourCheese )
Can also use this to constrain on the fact itself, instead of just a field:
Person( cheese = Cheese( type == "stilton ) )
This could be use in config options:
Call( duration < CallConf().minDuration )
But as Edson pointed out it is open to abuse and misunderstanding, how
long till people do:
Call( duration < CallConf().maxDuration, duration > CallConf().maxDuration )
Which is more like doing the following which has cross product issues:
CallConf( $maxDuration1 : maxDuration )
CallConf( $maxDuration2 : maxDuration )
Call( duration < ,$maxDuration1 duration > $maxDuration2 )
Mark
Mark Proctor wrote:
> I've been thinking of an idea to make rules more expressive, its just
> syntax sugar at the parser level, but thought i'd ask feedback - if
> anyone with antlr skills wants to make this work, let us know :)
>
> Instead of doing:
> $p : Person($favouriteCheese : favouriteCheese )
> Cheese( name == $favouriteCheese )
>
> We should allow the following:
> $p : Person()
> Cheese( name == $p.favouriteCheese )
>
> We could take this further and in places where a pattern is not used
> elsewhere allow:
> Cheese( name == Person().favouriteCheese )
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
