Re: [rules-dev] forall implementation by transformation?
OK, done; and few nits near by.
I may have to run local builds of the docs. Some things don't look
right in the docbook source.
Cheers
-W
On 16 November 2010 16:33, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org> wrote:
On 16/11/2010 14:32, Edson Tirelli wrote:
> 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.
W,
Your permissions still working? Can you correct that?
Mark
> 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
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev