[rules-users] bug in 3.1M?

[Olenin, Vladimir (MOH)]

Hi,

 

I've run across one thing. If I evaluate two columns within 'exists'
statement it throws compilation error if I don't connect two columns with
'and':

 

Exists (

            Column (...)

            Column (...)

)

 

With 'and' everything compiles OK:

 

Exists (

            Column (...) and

            Column (...)

)

 

Which is correct? Or probably both are not correct? From the 3.1M release
notes I can suggest there is another syntax (which works as well):

 

Exists (

                        Column (...) and

            Exists Column (...)

)

 

I thought #1 should work OK.... I'm not sure what #2 might mean for DROOLS.
>From the rules & data I'm processing and results I'm getting it seems like
it works as #1 should, ie, checking existence of the tuple represented by
the columns within the 'exists' block....

 

Thanks,

 

Vlad

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070309/e99c7f26/attachment.html