Ahhh I wondered about that, thanks. Again, now I see it, it makes complete sense. This drools stuff is actually pretty damn good!
Richard Chris Woodrow wrote: > > You're right, if you want to do this with 2 facts, you'll need to do : > > $test : Test( $y : y ) > Test( > this == $test, > x == ($y + 1) ) > > Chris > > 2008/5/2 Raffi Khatchadourian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> On Fri 2.May'08 at 10:05:20 +0100, Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote: >> >> > The "when" section matches fact (object) patterns, so your requirement >> > could be written as:- >> > >> > when there is a Test Fact 'A' and another Test Fact 'B' where "the 'x' >> > property of 'A'" equals "the 'y' property of fact 'B' plus 1" then..... >> > >> > This would become:- >> > >> > rule "Rule 1" >> > when >> > Test( $y : y ) >> > Test( x == ($y + 1) ) >> > >> >> Actually, please correct me if I am mistaken, but is this condition >> correct? I believe that the original question is that for a single >> instance of class Test t, fire the rule when t.x == t.y + 1 (where 't' >> refers to the *same* instance of class Test). I believe the rule above >> would match any instance of class Test whose x value is equal to the >> value of the instance field y from *any* instance of class Test plus 1. >> Does that make sense? >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-users mailing list >> rules-users@lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/newbie-question-on-%22when%22-condition-syntax-tp17015309p17028019.html Sent from the drools - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
