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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)yahoo.com&gt; 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(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users