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 >