Edson hasa fixed this in trunk, so you could use the latest snapshot.

forall and its equivalent not(not(...)) are equally affected.

A not very elegant workaround would be using accumulate, counting the non-matches
 and testing the resulting Number with >0.

-W




On 26 November 2010 11:35, OlliSee <o.roess@seeburger.de> wrote:

Hi there,

I'm experiencing the same problem using Drools 5.1.1
Whats the status on this?

By the way. It also doesn't work the other way round with

  not (exists(X(y != z)))

which is basically the same as

  forall($x : X()
         X(this == $x, y == z)
  )

If this is still a problem, how can I surpass this to get expected results?
Thanks in advance.

Oliver

--
View this message in context: http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/forall-not-delivering-as-expected-tp1461552p1972065.html
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users