[rules-dev] forall implementation by transformation?

[Edson Tirelli]

    Yes, the extra "not" in front of forall is a mistake and needs to
be removed. And yes, that is how drools and (AFAIK) all Rete based
engines implement it.

    Edson

2010/11/16 Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun at gmail.com>:
> Expert manual:
>   not( forall( p1 p2 p3...)) is equivalent to writing not(p1 and
> not(and p2 p3...))
> I think this is incorrect; it should read
>   forall( p1 p2 p3...) is equivalent to writing not(p1 and not(and p2 p3...))
>
> Is this also the way forall is actually implemented?
>
> -W
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>



-- 
  Edson Tirelli
  JBoss Drools Core Development
  JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com