As Wolfgang mentioned, that is valid syntax (I had no idea about COBOL though... ehehe).
Anyway, as you know by now, 5.2 is under heavy changes in the parser and compiler sides. The particular problem you mentioned was fixed yesterday, so no need to open a JIRA. Feel free to test against the latest HEAD if you can.
Stay with us during this painful transition because when all is said and done, I believe users will be happy with the new language. At the core of the changes is the requirement to have constraints defined as: <field> <operator> <value>. This is gone in 5.2. Now you can write constraints as any valid boolean expression, no funky business necessary. Before, we did not support method calls in expressions, because the () caused ambiguities... not an issue anymore. Before you had to wrap expression in evals, and value expressions in ()... not anymore... so, stay tuned... there is light at the end of the tunnel... :)
Drools compiler is now running all tests green as of last night (although we still have some ignored tests to check) and today I am trying to make sure all tests in all core modules run fine.
2011/3/25 Laird Nelson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Wolfgang Laun <email@example.com>
This is correct syntax, although the parens are redundant in this particular situation.
Technically, this is called a "multi-restriction". Expand it by inserting the field (answer.ID) in front of each relational operator. It's inherited from COBOL :-)
OK, so then this issue is a valid bug? Thanks for your help.
rules-dev mailing list
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com