[rules-dev] forall implementation by transformation?

[Mark Proctor]

On 16/11/2010 14:32, Edson Tirelli wrote:
>      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.
W,

Your permissions still working? Can you correct that?

Mark
>      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
>>
>
>