The rule engine is still trying to approximate logic, even if not
completely in a mathematical sense.
One property quantifiers have to obey is DeMorgan's laws, so "forall ...
" should be logically equivalent
to "not exists .. such that not...", which in Drools becomes for example :
forall Cloth( dry )
<->
not Cloth( ! dry )
if forall returned false on an empty set, the equivalence would no
longer hold.
Notice that there is a second negation inside the pattern.
(btw, the "not" CE has the semantics of "not exists")
This is actually the way it is implemented internally, and no, I don't
think that
it would be appropriate to change it.
Davide
On 01/08/2014 12:32 PM, Sonata wrote:
laune wrote
> On 08/01/2014, Davide Sottara <
> dsotty@
> > wrote:
>> Indeed it is true by convention, see also
>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification
>>
>> The only other alternative is to deprecate quantifiers altogether ;)
>>
> Ah, *by convention*, yes. One should exercise some care with "vacuous
> truths", however. Uttering statements such as "All the little green
> men in my room are from Mars" may not brand you as a liar, but you
> could be called "batty". ;-)
>
> -W
>
>> Davide
>>
Guys, I am not sure whats the arguing point here. But from a programmer's
and a Drools engine user's perspective, I would find forall(void) to return
false more convenient.
Say for example:
forall(Cloth(dried)) then collect()
Programmingwise, I dont want to execute collect() when the Cloth()
collection is empty and do extra null checkings.
Performancewise, I also dont want to call collect() when there is actually
nothing to perform.
In terms of semantics, I purposely want to check for isDried is true, it is
easy to realize from the LHS that I only want to collect clothes when all of
them are dried, rather than I want to collect also empty air.
On the contrary, if I really want to do the RHS even though the LHS has
nothing, I would have written:
not( exists( Customer() ) ) then takeanap()
and I will not write
forall( Customer(status == "gone") ) then takeanap()
because the latter needs to do extra property visits and string comparisons
and it is so indirect to express what I really want.
I really dont care what the mathematical definition is unless you tell me
Drools is a math. engine rather than a rule engine to express business
requirements. That, I should update myself and take a step back to look at
Drools again. Just my own opinion :P
--
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.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users