haha, users already do the right thing :) so no one ever needs to worry about a rule being 5 pages with deeply nested and/or. Joking aside, I am quite shocked at how frequent users do it. In fact, I would say it's like half the time, users do stupid things like that.
then they bring in a consultant, who fixes the pile of mess. peter On 1/13/07, Michael Neale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yes, well just cause you can, doesn't mean you should... ;) I think its needed for the first order logic stuff like not, exists, forall, *occasionally* (especially "not" I have often wanted it), but should only be used as a light seasoning. On 1/12/07, Peter Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > oh the horror of users nesting statements 4-10 deep. > > I fear the poor user won't know what the heck they wrote the next day :) > > peter > > On 1/12/07, Edson Tirelli < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Except for the need to change code target to 1.5, core and compiler > > are compiling fine now and all tests are green. > > > > I just commited the new Builders. We now support any level of > > Conditional Elements nesting. > > > > Forall is just syntax sugar that I will add now. Shall be ok on > > monday. > > > > So, I think the major requirement for M1 is the MVEL stuff. > > > > []s > > Edson > > > > Michael Neale wrote: > > > > > lol ! other then 3.0.x branch ?? ;) > > > > > > Edson may know a branch to use, but in any case, Mark is beavering > > > away on MVEL integration which will be awesome (I think he wants > > MVEL > > > for an M1 release). > > > > > > On 1/12/07, *Dirk Bergstrom* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > > > Michael Neale was heard to exclaim, On 01/02/07 05:28: > > > > Guys, I am ok to do a M1 release of 3.2 whenever needed > > > > > > Any news on this? I've been running (in production now) on code > > I > > > pulled from > > > trunk a month or so ago, and it throws NPEs now and again. I'd > > > really like to > > > get something a bit more stable. Today's trunk "revision 8842" > > > doesn't build, > > > because the mvel code is Java 1.5. > > > > > > I'm kinda stuck here, and I'm hoping that someone can throw me a > > > > > bone. If M1 > > > isn't coming soon, was there a particular revision number that > > was > > > fairly stable > > > that I can use? > > > > > > -- > > > Dirk Bergstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > _____________________________________________ > > > Juniper Networks Inc., Computer Geek > > > Tel: 408.745.3182 Fax: 408.745.8905 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > rules-users mailing list > > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >rules-dev mailing list > > > [email protected] > > >https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Edson Tirelli > > Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer > > Office: +55 11 3124-6000 > > Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151 > > JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rules-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev > > > _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
_______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
