[rules-users] bug in 3.1M?

Hi, I've run across one thing. If I evaluate two columns within 'exists' statement it throws compilation error if I don't connect two columns with 'and': Exists ( Column (...) Column (...) ) With 'and' everything compiles OK: Exists ( Column (...) and Column (...) ) Which is correct? Or probably both are not correct? From the 3.1M release notes I can suggest there is another syntax (which works as well): Exists ( Column (...) and Exists Column (...) ) I thought #1 should work OK.... I'm not sure what #2 might mean for DROOLS. it works as #1 should, ie, checking existence of the tuple represented by the columns within the 'exists' block.... Thanks, Vlad