[rules-dev] Curious inconsisteny (?) in DRL.g

[Mark Proctor]

  On 22/09/2010 11:27, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
> Rules lhs_not and lhs_exist are analogous, and both of them are 
> derivations of lhs_unary.
>
> But lhs_unary also has the alternative lhs_not_binding, which permits 
> us to write one of
> these two forms:
>    not $label : Fact( )
>    not $label : ( Fact1() || Fact2() || ... )
>
> Is this binding, which is restricted to the scope of 'not', useful in 
> any way?
> Possibly within the 1st form, in an inline eval. But I don't see how 
> it can
> be used in the second case.
>
> Why is the same binding not possible with 'exists'?
>
> (This is not meant to say that I'd like to have binding for 'exists', 
> too.)
I believe that edson wants to remove the


I saw that in Clips and thought it was nice, but edson prefers the more 
explicit and consistent:
( $binding : Pattern() or $binding : Patern() or $binding : Pattern() )

With regards to why not, but not exists, I dunno edson will have to 
answer that one.

Mark
>
> -W
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100922/d9e076ab/attachment.html