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.
Your permissions still working? Can you correct that?
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?
> rules-dev mailing list