Sorry sounds worng, but the right answer is YES, because I wrote the >= in 1 condition.
Its suppoused to be just 3 conditions. What i mean is you dont need to write 1 condition for every comparation, because some times (Y<x<Z) some validations can be use share conditions (Y<x and x<Z). And the use of $param can be very useful on decision tables. Friday, November 25, 2005, 6:22:05 PM, you wrote: > Subir, > No, just 4 conditions (columns) as you have 3 diferent logic > operations to compare N with. > So you need: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Rule | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | A1 | A2 | A3 |A4 | > |N<$param|N>=$param|N=$param|N>$param| | | | | > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > R1 | 500 | | | | X | | | | > R2 | | 450 | | | | X | | | > R3 | | | 1000 | | | | X | | > R4 | 2000 | | |1000 | | | |X | I wrote the >>= condition as one condition because is readed as > "greather or equals" which is actualy several conditions > for the same rule because the operator between conditions is AND. > Friday, November 25, 2005, 2:17:38 PM, you wrote: >> Hi, >> I need to have conditions based on a numeric value, say, N inside a decision >> table. >> Following is the set of possible conditions : >> If N < 500, perform say, Action1 If N >>>=450, perform say, Action2 >> If N ==1000, perform say, Action3 >> If 1000<N<2000, perform say, Action4 >> Do I need to create four condition columns to achieve the above? Or is there >> any better way to do it. >> Would appreciate if anyone can help me. >> Thanks. >> Subir > -------------------------- > Felipe Piccolini > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Felipe Piccolini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
