Stilton good is favourite mine.
The force is strong in this one.
sent on the move
On 16 Apr 2011 16:48, "Mark Proctor" <mproctor@codehaus.org> wrote:
> I have the basics to backward chaining working now, using both named and
> positional arguments and mix of both. Mixed positional/named syntax is
> based conceptually on the RuleML proposal for POSL:
> http://ruleml.org/submission/ruleml-shortation.html
>
> POSL provides a bridge between the positional terms, often used in
> Prolog, and "slotted" names used in OO languages. POSL allows the best
> of both worlds.
>
> I'm building out the tests, which should illustrate the behaviour and
> syntax here:
> https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools/tree/master/drools-compiler/src/test/java/org/drools/integrationtests/BackwardChainingTest.java
>
> Still lots to do to improve the over all syntax and consistency across
> patterns. The last test is a geneology style test which is probably more
> intesting to people. There is still an issue here when using eval. I
> currently use "new Variable" to indicate an unbound unification
> variable, the problem is that evals and other things generate code
> expecting the original object type, say "String" and this results a cast
> error (see sibling rule). I want to avoid an explicit instanceof check
> for unwrapping and will be working on that over the weekend.
>
> There is enough there now to give people an idea of what it looks like.
> I'll try and put together a "roadmap" for BC, along with more details of
> the syntax next week once it all comes together.
>
> If anyone wants to help on this, you know where to fine me :)
> irc.codehaus.org #drools
>
> Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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