So, if used like that, 'not' does not have 'existential' meaning then, but simple 'negation'? I mean, the expression not MyObject(field == 'value') would still mean 'not exists', correct? Would the expression not (MyObject(field == 'value')) mean MyObject(field != 'value') then. In other worlds, "all objects OTHER then those matching the constraint"? Thanks. Vlad -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli Sent: 20 February 2007 14:37 To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] logical 'not' - is there such a construct? Vlad, In 3.1M1 you can write: rule X when not ( MyObject( aaa == "bbb" ) and MyObject2( bbb == "aaa" ) ) then // do something end But remember that variables bound inside the "not" block are not avaible in the consequence for obvious reasons. []s Edson Olenin, Vladimir (MOH) wrote: >Hi, > >I wonder if there is logical 'not' operator (in the meaning of "!=" -> >'not equal') which can be applied to the whole rule? Eg: > >Rule x > >When > >! ( > >MyObject(aaa == "bbb") > >MyObject2(bbb == "aaa") > >) > >Then > >// do smth > >End > >Basically I'm looking for an operator to reverse the evaluation result >of the expression in the brackets. The use case: in my system all >rules are defined from 'rule passes' prospective, while the >application should take some action in case the rule is NOT passed >(ie, 'else' case). > >Any way to do that except reformulating the constraints themselves? > >Thanks, > >Vlad > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >rules-users mailing list >rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > >