Re: [rules-dev] forall implementation by transformation?
Yes, the extra "not" in front of forall is a mistake and needs to
be removed. And yes, that is how drools and (AFAIK) all Rete based
engines implement it.
Edson
2010/11/16 Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com>:
Expert manual:
not( forall( p1 p2 p3...)) is equivalent to writing not(p1 and
not(and p2 p3...))
I think this is incorrect; it should read
forall( p1 p2 p3...) is equivalent to writing not(p1 and not(and p2 p3...))
Is this also the way forall is actually implemented?
-W
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com