Re: [rules-dev] Slot Specific and Refraction

A remark on the proposed syntax: onChange == [name1, name2, name3] defines a set of slots by explicit enumeration, whereas onchange == [ ! name1, !name2, *] defines a set my subtracting the enumerated slots from the full set. I think that using onChange == [ ! name1, *, name2 ] doesn't make sense, since "name2" is already in '*'. This means that only negated slot names make sense in combination with '*'. This, in turn, means that '*' in addition to a list of negated slots is redundant. Therefore, only a list of all positive *or *all negated slot names makes sense. Thus, all possible sets can be defined by permitting nothing but one of these forms: onChange == [<name>,...] onChange == [*] onChange != [<name>,...] // subtract all enumerated from full set One can also permit these two identical forms: onChange == [] onChange != [*] and onChange != [] which is the same as onChange == [*] Best -W On 31 July 2010 20:53, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org&gt; wrote: