Op 21-04-11 11:25, Michael Anstis schreef:
@ge0ffrey,

*you* know "looc" is a typo, but "loc" could equally be an unused bound variable and "looc" an unused output value.
This is not the case if output values require to be suffixed by ":", ": ?" or ": location" (= propositions geoffrey, manstis or laune).
The point is, currently (= proposition mark), they are not required to be suffixed,
so "looc" is indeed seen as an unused output value (instead of input value)
and doesn't raise a compilation error.

I find it difficult to see there is sufficient "context" to give a suitable error message - other than perhaps warning of unused bindings.

@wolfgang,

Your proposition works for slotted parameters; whereas the ";" allowed for positional parameters too.

AFAIK the BC changes bring two discrete features: BC and positional parameters.

@all

I've expressed my "simpleton" view on how, as a user, I would best understand its operation.

It isn't based upon science or a wealth of experience with a multitude of other programming languages; just a "feeling" of what I consider right.

Being just a "feeling" I am happy to watch this discussion evolve and learn from others' experience.

With kind regards,

Mike

On 21 April 2011 07:50, Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com> wrote:
and instead have the tooling inject what ever is necessary as a visulation.
> Most questions we have to the user mailing list involve people writing DRL not using tooling.
IntelliJ users and NetBeans users don't have any (up-to-date) DRL tooling.
Some Eclipse users I know don't install extra plugins such as the drools plugin out of fear of Eclipse instability.
The new Eclipse plugin wont do that visualization yet either?


I like Laun's and Manstis and mine proposal,
as long as there's something in the syntax that makes it clear whether that food is
- an input variable => constrains the rule, potentially decreasing the number of activations
- an output variable => frees the rule, potentially increasing the number of activations

And a typo shouldn't change the behavior from one to the other, it should give a compilation error.
rule typo2
when
    Here( loc : location)
    ?editableThings(food, looc;) // looc is a typo of loc
then
    System.out.println("Food " + f + " at location " + loc);
    // Output:
    // Food crackers at location kitchen
    // Food apple at location kitchen
    // Food chocolate at location kitchen // BUG: that food is in the living room!
    // Food chips at location kitchen // BUG: that food is in the living room!
end




Op 21-04-11 08:27, Wolfgang Laun schreef:
Designing syntax well is not easy. With extensions, one should strive for as much
conformity with the existing language, while trying to follow general principles.

One might have discussed (for instance) the use of field names for referencing
the query relations, taken from their parameter definition. And then one could write,
as usual:

    ?editableThings(food: thing, location == loc )

or

    ?editableThings(food: thing, loc: location )

And the in/out is clear to all who know a little legacy DRL.

And the ugly semicolon evaporates.

And the maintainability/readability disadvantage of "positional" is gone.

Cheers
-W


On 20 April 2011 22:52, Michael Anstis <michael.anstis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Simple yes, but consistent too should be a factor.
>
> Most questions we have to the user mailing list involve people writing DRL not using tooling.
>
> So DRL, IMO, has to be seen as the "tool" to author rules. Drop the proposed colon altogether or make it's use consistent.
>
> On 20 April 2011 17:42, Mark Proctor <mproctor@codehaus.org> wrote:
>>
>> My personally opinion is to keep the language simple and instead have the tooling inject what ever is necessary as a visulation. Be it different colouring, hover over or graphic symbol. It keeps the language simple and actually achieve the desired result better.
>>
>> Mark
>> On 20/04/2011 14:00, Leonardo Gomes wrote:
>>
>> +1 for Michael's suggestion.
>>
>> It's a bit more verbose, but makes things clear.
>>
>> The semicolon here:
>> ?editableThings(food : ?, loc;)
>>
>> Is a typo, right? You actually meant:
>>
>> ?editableThings(food : ?, loc);
>>
>> - Leo.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Michael Anstis <michael.anstis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmmmmm....
>>>
>>> Personally, I don't like the use of ":" i isolation as it's what we currently use to bind variables and I feel "cheese:" as an output definition could just make people question whether they've missed something. Perhaps "cheese : ?" would be a viable alternative. This would be in keeping with (a) current variable declaration, (b) the use of "?" to identify a call to a query. Geoffrey's examples would then become:-
>>>
>>> rule outputinput
>>> when
>>>     Here( loc : location)
>>>     ?editableThings(food : ?, loc;)
>>> then
>>>     System.out.println("Food " + food + " at location " + loc);
>>>     // Output:
>>>     // Food crackers at location kitchen
>>>     // Food apple at location kitchen
>>> end
>>>
>>> rule outputOutput
>>> when
>>>     ?editableThings(food : ?, loc : ?;)
>>> then
>>>     System.out.println("Food " + food + " at location " + loc);
>>>     // Output:
>>>     // Food crackers at location kitchen
>>>     // Food apple at location kitchen
>>>     // Food chocolate at location living room
>>>     // Food chips at location living room
>>> end
>>>
>>> rule typo
>>> when
>>>     Here( looc : location)
>>>     ?editableThings(food : ?, loc : ?;)
>>> then
>>>     System.out.println("Food " + food + " at location " + loc);
>>>     // Output:
>>>     // Food crackers at location kitchen
>>>     // Food apple at location kitchen
>>>     // Food chocolate at location living room
>>>     // Food chips at location living room
>>>     // looc is just an unused bound variable
>>> end
>>>
>>> On 20 April 2011 10:16, Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Mark and I were discussing backwards chaining
>>>>   http://blog.athico.com/2011/04/backward-chaining-emerges-in-drools.html
>>>> on IRC and we 'd like your opinion on a design issue.
>>>>
>>>> The example
>>>> ========
>>>>
>>>> Let's say you have this data:
>>>>   Location("crackers", "kitchen")
>>>>   Location("apple", "kitchen")
>>>>   Location("chocolate", "living room")
>>>>   Location("chips", "living room")
>>>>
>>>> Let's say you have this code:
>>>>
>>>> query editableThings( String thing, String location )
>>>>     Location(thing, location)
>>>> end
>>>> And then these 3 rules:
>>>>
>>>> rule outputinput
>>>> when
>>>>     Here( loc : location)
>>>>     ?editableThings(food, loc;)
>>>> then
>>>>     System.out.println("Food " + f + " at location " + loc);
>>>>     // Output:
>>>>     // Food crackers at location kitchen
>>>>     // Food apple at location kitchen
>>>> end
>>>>
>>>> rule outputOutput
>>>> when
>>>>     ?editableThings(food, loc;)
>>>> then
>>>>     System.out.println("Food " + f + " at location " + loc);
>>>>     // Output:
>>>>     // Food crackers at location kitchen
>>>>     // Food apple at location kitchen
>>>>     // Food chocolate at location living room
>>>>     // Food chips at location living room
>>>> end
>>>>
>>>> rule typo
>>>> when
>>>>     Here( looc : location)
>>>>     ?editableThings(food, loc;)
>>>> then
>>>>     System.out.println("Food " + f + " at location " + loc);
>>>>     // Output:
>>>>     // Food crackers at location kitchen
>>>>     // Food apple at location kitchen
>>>>     // Food chocolate at location living room
>>>>     // Food chips at location living room
>>>> end
>>>>
>>>> The discussion
>>>> =========
>>>>
>>>> Both rules have the same statement:
>>>>   ?editableThings(food, loc;)
>>>>
>>>> In the outputInput rule, "loc" is an input variable.
>>>> In the outputOutput rule, "loc" is an output variable.
>>>>
>>>> I am wondering if we don't need a visual demarcation that a variable is an output variable,
>>>> to make it stand out of an input variable?
>>>>
>>>> Proposition 1: Suffix output variables with ":"
>>>>
>>>> rule outputinput
>>>> when
>>>>     Here( loc : location)
>>>>     ?editableThings(food:, loc;)
>>>> then ... end
>>>>
>>>> rule outputOutput
>>>> when
>>>>     ?editableThings(food:, loc:;)
>>>> then ... end
>>>> rule typo
>>>> when
>>>>     Here( looc : location)
>>>>     ?editableThings(food:, loc;) // compiler error because input variable loc is not declared
>>>> then ... end
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> With kind regards,
>>>> Geoffrey De Smet
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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


-- 
With kind regards,
Geoffrey De Smet

_______________________________________________
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


-- 
With kind regards,
Geoffrey De Smet