Expert manual:   not( forall( p1 p2 p3...)) is equivalent to writing not(p1 and not(and p2 p3...)) I think this is incorrect; it should read   forall( p1 p2 p3...) is equivalent to writing not(p1 and not(and p2 p3...)) Is this also the way forall is actually implemented? -W _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

On 16/11/2010 14:32, Edson Tirelli wrote: >      Yes, the extra "not" in front of forall is a mistake and needs to > be removed. And yes, that is how drools and (AFAIK) all Rete based > engines implement it. W, Your permissions still working? Can you correct that? Mark >      Edson > > 2010/11/16 Wolfgang Laun<wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com>: >> Expert manual: >>    not( forall( p1 p2 p3...)) is equivalent to writing not(p1 and >> not(and p2 p3...)) >> I think this is incorrect; it should read >>    forall( p1 p2 p3...) is equivalent to writing not(p1 and not(and p2 p3...)) >> >> Is this also the way forall is actually implemented? >> >> -W >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-dev mailing list >> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev