Re: [rules-dev] Slot Specific and Refraction

A remark on the proposed syntax: onChange == [name1, name2, name3] defines a set of slots by explicit enumeration, whereas onchange == [ ! name1, !name2, *] defines a set my subtracting the enumerated slots from the full set. I think that using onChange == [ ! name1, *, name2 ] doesn't make sense, since "name2" is already in '*'. This means that only negated slot names make sense in combination with '*'. This, in turn, means that '*' in addition to a list of negated slots is redundant.

Therefore, only a list of all positive /or /all negated slot names makes sense. Thus, all possible sets can be defined by permitting nothing but one of these forms: onChange == [<name>,...] onChange == [*] onChange != [<name>,...] // subtract all enumerated from full set

One can also permit these two identical forms: onChange == [] onChange != [*] and onChange != [] which is the same as onChange == [*]

Best -W On 31 July 2010 20:53, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org <mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org>> wrote: http://blog.athico.com/2010/07/slot-specific-and-refraction.html _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev@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