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.ro...@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@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
