Re: [rules-dev] Curious inconsisteny (?) in DRL.g
On 22/09/2010 11:27, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
Rules lhs_not and lhs_exist are analogous, and both of them are
derivations of lhs_unary.
But lhs_unary also has the alternative lhs_not_binding, which permits
us to write one of
these two forms:
not $label : Fact( )
not $label : ( Fact1() || Fact2() || ... )
Is this binding, which is restricted to the scope of 'not', useful in
any way?
Possibly within the 1st form, in an inline eval. But I don't see how
it can
be used in the second case.
Why is the same binding not possible with 'exists'?
(This is not meant to say that I'd like to have binding for 'exists',
too.)
I believe that edson wants to remove the
I saw that in Clips and thought it was nice, but edson prefers the more
explicit and consistent:
( $binding : Pattern() or $binding : Patern() or $binding : Pattern() )
With regards to why not, but not exists, I dunno edson will have to
answer that one.
Mark
-W
_______________________________________________
rules-dev mailing list
rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
Attachments:
- attachment.html (text/html — 2.1 KB)