The $name: Pattern thing I am convinced is to do with Mark's prior history of being abused by perl ;) But the real reason is we wanted to use ?name: Pattern() - using "?" like the clips lineage of languages - but IIRC even ilog allows that. We wanted our labels to be compatible with java source code - where $variable is a valid name (although no one actually uses it) and ?name is not. So here we are ;) On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com <mailto:greg_barton@yahoo.com>> wrote: Yes, and I don't think we want to take readability cues from Perl. :) GreG On Sep 23, 2010, at 3:03, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com <mailto:wolfgang.laun@gmail.com>> wrote: > On 23 September 2010 09:31, Bruno Unna <bruno.unna(a)gmail.com > <mailto:bruno.unna@gmail.com>> wrote: > > FWIW: in Perl, there are both operators as well (|| and > 'or'). However, they are *not* exactly the same. Although > they can be used in any context to render a boolean > expression, their priority makes the difference. Taken from > official documentation (http://bit.ly/dgw4GT): > > > Low precedence "and", "or", "xor" were introduced to permit "Perl > poetry", or, more seriously, to > permit control flow using a logical expression, especially after > function calls without parentheses. > see Naples or die; # same as: see(Napes) || die(); but not: > see(Naples || die() ); > > No way this makes any sense in Drools. > > -W > >> Binary "or" returns the logical disjunction of the two >> surrounding expressions. It's equivalent to || except for >> the very low precedence. This makes it useful for control flow. > > Nonetheless, it must be taken into account that the > distinction makes sense for a Perl programmer. For a > rules-writing guy (or girl) perhaps the distinction is > extremely obscure. > > Regards. > > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing list > rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev -- Michael D Neale home: www.michaelneale.net <http://www.michaelneale.net> blog: michaelneale.blogspot.com <http://michaelneale.blogspot.com> _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev

cool.. I think that it's a great idea to enforce it.. giving people to much choices to do the same always complicates things. On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org&gt;wrote: > yes, ? wasn't easy due to java and data munging would get messy as we map > between things. > > So we just left it as any valid java identifier, but using the $ prefix as > a coding convention make it easier to differentiate fieldnames and bindings > Person( age : age ) > Person( age == age ) > > The above looks a little confusing compared to: > Person( $age : age ) > Person( age == $age ) > > Davide wants to enforce the $ prefix so that parsing can be easier. > > Mark > > On 24/09/2010 00:31, Michael Neale wrote: > > The $name: Pattern thing I am convinced is to do with Mark's prior history > of being abused by perl ;) > > But the real reason is we wanted to use ?name: Pattern() - using "?" > like the clips lineage of languages - but IIRC even ilog allows that. We > wanted our labels to be compatible with java source code - where $variable > is a valid name (although no one actually uses it) and ?name is not. > > So here we are ;) > > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Greg Barton <greg_barton(a)yahoo.com&gt;wrote: > >> Yes, and I don't think we want to take readability cues from Perl. :) >> >> GreG >> >> On Sep 23, 2010, at 3:03, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> On 23 September 2010 09:31, Bruno Unna <bruno.unna(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> FWIW: in Perl, there are both operators as well (|| and 'or'). However, >>> they are *not* exactly the same. Although they can be used in any context to >>> render a boolean expression, their priority makes the difference. Taken from >>> official documentation (http://bit.ly/dgw4GT): >>> >>> >> Low precedence "and", "or", "xor" were introduced to permit "Perl >> poetry", or, more seriously, to >> permit control flow using a logical expression, especially after function >> calls without parentheses. >> see Naples or die; # same as: see(Napes) || die(); but not: >> see(Naples || die() ); >> >> No way this makes any sense in Drools. >> >> -W >> >> Binary "or" returns the logical disjunction of the two surrounding >>> expressions. It's equivalent to || except for the very low precedence. This >>> makes it useful for control flow. >>> >>> >>> Nonetheless, it must be taken into account that the distinction makes >>> sense for a Perl programmer. For a rules-writing guy (or girl) perhaps the >>> distinction is extremely obscure. >>> >>> Regards. >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Michael D Neale > home: www.michaelneale.net > blog: michaelneale.blogspot.com > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing listrules-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://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 > > -- - CTO @ http://www.plugtree.com - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio - _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev