hmmm.. in an eval it *should* work - I assume there is a compile error that mentions the L ?
well this should not be a problem in 3.2, but for 3.0.x we can certainly look at it if you have a unit test.
A literal outside of an eval shouldn't be needed - as the type is inferenced from the facts automatically.
Is there a way to create a long literal in a rule condition?Typing 30L results in a syntax error because of the L at the end. The error occurs even if I put this literal in eval.--Aziz
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users