[rules-users] bug in 3.1M?

[Mark Proctor]

'exists' and 'not' can only have a single child beneath it. use 
'and'/'or' to nested multiple CEs.

Mark
Olenin, Vladimir (MOH) wrote:
>
> 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
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070310/9764be03/attachment.html