8:23 p.m.
haha, users already do the right thing :)
so no one ever needs to worry about a rule being 5 pages with deeply nested
and/or. Joking aside, I am quite shocked at how frequent users do it. In
fact, I would say it's like half the time, users do stupid things like that.
then they bring in a consultant, who fixes the pile of mess.
peter
On 1/13/07, Michael Neale <michael.neale(a)gmail.com> wrote:
yes, well just cause you can, doesn't mean you should... ;)
I think its needed for the first order logic stuff like not, exists,
forall, *occasionally* (especially "not" I have often wanted it), but should
only be used as a light seasoning.
On 1/12/07, Peter Lin <woolfel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> oh the horror of users nesting statements 4-10 deep.
>
> I fear the poor user won't know what the heck they wrote the next day :)
>
> peter
>
> On 1/12/07, Edson Tirelli < tirelli(a)post.com> wrote:
> >
> > Except for the need to change code target to 1.5, core and compiler
> > are compiling fine now and all tests are green.
> >
> > I just commited the new Builders. We now support any level of
> > Conditional Elements nesting.
> >
> > Forall is just syntax sugar that I will add now. Shall be ok on
> > monday.
> >
> > So, I think the major requirement for M1 is the MVEL stuff.
> >
> > []s
> > Edson
> >
> > Michael Neale wrote:
> >
> > > lol ! other then 3.0.x branch ?? ;)
> > >
> > > Edson may know a branch to use, but in any case, Mark is beavering
> > > away on MVEL integration which will be awesome (I think he wants
> > MVEL
> > > for an M1 release).
> > >
> > > On 1/12/07, *Dirk Bergstrom* < dirk(a)juniper.net
> > > <mailto: dirk(a)juniper.net>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Michael Neale was heard to exclaim, On 01/02/07 05:28:
> > > > Guys, I am ok to do a M1 release of 3.2 whenever needed
> > >
> > > Any news on this? I've been running (in production now) on code
> > I
> > > pulled from
> > > trunk a month or so ago, and it throws NPEs now and again. I'd
> > > really like to
> > > get something a bit more stable. Today's trunk "revision
8842"
> > > doesn't build,
> > > because the mvel code is Java 1.5.
> > >
> > > I'm kinda stuck here, and I'm hoping that someone can throw me
a
> >
> > > bone. If M1
> > > isn't coming soon, was there a particular revision number that
> > was
> > > fairly stable
> > > that I can use?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dirk Bergstrom dirk(a)juniper.net
> > > <mailto: dirk(a)juniper.net>
> > > _____________________________________________
> > > Juniper Networks Inc., Computer Geek
> > > Tel: 408.745.3182 Fax: 408.745.8905
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rules-users mailing list
> > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >rules-dev mailing list
> > > rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> > >https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Edson Tirelli
> > Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
> > Office: +55 11 3124-6000
> > Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151
> > JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-dev mailing list
> > rules-dev(a)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
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev