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@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev