[rules-dev] unsubscribe
Am 16.04.2011 um 22:05 schrieb rules-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org:
> Send rules-dev mailing list submissions to
> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> rules-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rules-dev-owner(a)lists.jboss.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of rules-dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Prolog Style Backward Chaining - First Cut (Michael Anstis)
> 2. Re: Prolog Style Backward Chaining - First Cut (Mauricio Salatino)
> 3. Re: Classpath Resources and Classloaders using cache
> (Pablo Nussembaum)
> 4. Re: Classpath Resources and Classloaders using cache
> (Mauricio Salatino)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 17:56:41 +0100
> From: Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [rules-dev] Prolog Style Backward Chaining - First Cut
> To: Rules Dev List <rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
> Message-ID: <BANLkTimmncEb3fJ_8jyLng+0_ZKAZT6_0A(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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(a)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...
>>
>> 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(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>