[rules-dev] Slot Specific and Refraction

[Wolfgang Laun]

A remark on the proposed syntax:
   onChange == [name1, name2, name3]
defines a set of slots by explicit enumeration, whereas
   onchange == [ ! name1, !name2, *]
defines a set my subtracting the enumerated slots from the full set.

I think that using
   onChange == [ ! name1, *, name2 ]
doesn't make sense, since "name2" is already in '*'. This means that
only negated slot names make sense in combination with '*'. This,
in turn, means that '*' in addition to a list of negated slots is
redundant.

Therefore, only a list of all positive *or *all negated slot names makes
sense. Thus, all possible sets can be defined by permitting nothing
but one of these forms:
   onChange == [<name>,...]
   onChange == [*]
   onChange != [<name>,...]   // subtract all enumerated from full set

One can also permit these two identical forms:
   onChange == []
   onChange != [*]
and
   onChange != []
which is the same as
   onChange == [*]

Best
-W




On 31 July 2010 20:53, Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org> wrote:

>  http://blog.athico.com/2010/07/slot-specific-and-refraction.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-dev/attachments/20100804/80834d76/attachment-0001.html