[rules-users] forall not delivering as expected

[Wolfgang Laun]

Edson hasa fixed this in trunk, so you could use the latest snapshot.

forall and its equivalent not(not(...)) are equally affected.

A not very elegant workaround would be using accumulate, counting the
non-matches
 and testing the resulting Number with >0.

-W




On 26 November 2010 11:35, OlliSee <o.roess at seeburger.de> wrote:

>
> Hi there,
>
> I'm experiencing the same problem using Drools 5.1.1
> Whats the status on this?
>
> By the way. It also doesn't work the other way round with
>
>   not (exists(X(y != z)))
>
> which is basically the same as
>
>   forall($x : X()
>          X(this == $x, y == z)
>   )
>
> If this is still a problem, how can I surpass this to get expected results?
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Oliver
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/forall-not-delivering-as-expected-tp1461552p1972065.html
> Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101126/6ab1a731/attachment.html