Re: [rules-dev] else

We have been looking into designs around else, so here are our initial brain storming ideas, which aims at doing more than just else, but handling signal processing like situations. "else" is always triggerd by the failure of a left propagation. In effect an named "else" block is just another terminal node that will result in an activation on the agenda. It will have access to declarations prior to the failure of propagation in the network. // Possible syntaxes [name] ( CE+ ) // no symbol [name] | ( CE+ ) [name] < ( CE+ ) 1) when [name1] < Person( name == "darth" ) // works on patterns A() then .... then.name1 ... end 2) when $p : Person( ) [name1] < eval( $p.name == "darth" ) // works on evals A() then .... then.name1 ... end 3) when [name1] < ( Person( name == "darth" ) and Address( city == "death star" ) // works on groups A() then .... then.name1 ... end This could actuall be extended to have inline "then" too. In this case when their is a success propagation on that node it will result in an activation placed on the agenda that has access to all the prior bound declarations. 1) when Person( name == "darth" ) > [name1] // works on patterns A() then .... then.name1 ... end 2) when $p : Person( ) eval( $p.name == "darth" ) > [name1] // works on evals A() then .... then.name1 ... end 3) when ( Person( name == "darth" ) and Address( city == "death star" ) > [name1] // works on groups A() then .... then.name1 ... end This can be used with 'or' when ( A() > [a1] or B() > [b1] or C() > [c1] ) D() then ... then.a1 .... then.b1 .... then.c1 ... end It's a little tricker but in theory we can do this before/afer the 'or' too This can be used with 'or' when [x1] < ( A() > [a1] or B() > [b1] or C() > [c1] ) D() then ... then.a1 .... then.b1 .... then.c1 ... then.x1 .... end We could allow [name] as just an inline creation to an activation that always passes, which with 'or' could provide a "default". when [x1] < ( A() > [a1] or B() > [b1] or C() > [c1] or [default] ) D() then Of course both could be supported at the same time [afailed] < A() > [asuccess] We could further allow just an inline code block, isntead of an inline reference to a block {...code here...} instead of [name1]. We can also use this to do switch like operations, for erlang style signal processing, although i'd like to see an improvemet to the syntax here, just not sure what it would be... $o : Object() from stream ( A() > [a] from $o or B() > [b] from $o or C() > [c] from $o ) Where as 'or' currently works like java's "|" single operator, i.e. all logical branches are tested. We could add a short cut or operationr 'sor' that would work like "||", so once the first CE matches in an 'or' block the rest are igored. We could even consider an 'xor' .... Finally there is no reason why we couldn't allow other CE's after the <. Which would provide for very rich signal processing. For instance. If A() fails, it'll propagate to B, if B() fails it'll activate [a1] [a1] < B() < A() This can be nested and using using parenthesis to show groupings. ( [a1] < B() > [b2] ) < A() Anyway more food for thought, enjoy :) Mark _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev