A remark on the proposed syntax:That is true, the * could be considered explicit if you have one ore more negated slots.
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.
agreed
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
yup, I like those ideas too. I'll get the wiki updated with them.
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@codehaus.org> wrote:
http://blog.athico.com/2010/07/slot-specific-and-refraction.html
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev