You're right. The L causes a syntax error at compile time.
 
Outside, an eval, I ran into range problems. I was trying to multiply a bunch of integers. The product was outside the range of an integer and I ended up with garbage. One way around it would have been to force the operands of the multiplication to a long.
 
I don't have a unit test but I'll slap one together.
 
--Aziz

Michael Neale <michael.neale@gmail.com> wrote:
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.

On 2/3/07, Aziz Boxwala <boxwala@yahoo.com> wrote:
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


_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users