[rules-users] forall is satisfied when there is nothing?

Hi, I am using the "forall" keyword on the LHS and it seems the condition is satisfied when there is nothing to match. e.g. "forall (MyClass(value == "test"))" fires the rule when there is no MyClass() object in the working memory. My workaround is add "exists (MyClass())". Also, same for "not (exists (MyClass(value != "test")))", but I can understand this, as there is no MyClass() object, it doesn't exists and hence "not" gives true. But for "forall", it doesnt sound right to me. I wonder if "forall" is actually implemented as "not exists" in the engine. Please clarify if this is by design or a bug. Build is 5.5.0.Final Thank you -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/forall-is-satisfied-when-there-is-nothi... Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.