Don't have any antlr experience, but I'd say that would be a very valuable addition - probably more BAs would be able to pick it up this way (without having to fallback on custom DSL)
Vlad -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor Sent: 20 March 2007 15:54 To: Rules Dev List Subject: Re: [rules-dev] sugar Could also allow: Cheese( name = Person( location == "london").favourCheese ) Can also use this to constrain on the fact itself, instead of just a field: Person( cheese = Cheese( type == "stilton ) ) This could be use in config options: Call( duration < CallConf().minDuration ) But as Edson pointed out it is open to abuse and misunderstanding, how long till people do: Call( duration < CallConf().maxDuration, duration > CallConf().maxDuration ) Which is more like doing the following which has cross product issues: CallConf( $maxDuration1 : maxDuration ) CallConf( $maxDuration2 : maxDuration ) Call( duration < ,$maxDuration1 duration > $maxDuration2 ) Mark Mark Proctor wrote: > I've been thinking of an idea to make rules more expressive, its just > syntax sugar at the parser level, but thought i'd ask feedback - if > anyone with antlr skills wants to make this work, let us know :) > > Instead of doing: > $p : Person($favouriteCheese : favouriteCheese ) > Cheese( name == $favouriteCheese ) > > We should allow the following: > $p : Person() > Cheese( name == $p.favouriteCheese ) > > We could take this further and in places where a pattern is not used > elsewhere allow: > Cheese( name == Person().favouriteCheese ) > > Mark > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
