On 9 May 2011 15:56, Mark Proctor <mproctor@codehaus.org> wrote:Sorry I got confused. When you said RHS, I thought you meant the consequence. In theory yes it should be indexable, but not at the moment. While we have improved the intelligence of the parser, we have not yet done so for the indexing - so indexing is "as 5.1" for now.
On 09/05/2011 12:40, Wolfgang Laun wrote:I don't understand this question as there is no join process in the RHS, and thus no possible indexing.
But the following does not permit indexing:
<any RHS expression from above> == <fieldname>
I thought that a very simple transformation could fold this back into
<fieldname> == <any RHS expression from above>
If the "indexable" forms can be detected by checking the 1st operand and the operator, surely the same is possible for testing the 2nd operand, followed by swapping operands.
Example:
Person( name == "Fred" )
same as
Person( "Fred" == name )
But I don't think that this is an important feature - just wanted to make sure what is, and what is not carried over from legacy.
Thanks
Wolfgang
_______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev