Re: [rules-users] suggestion for drl grammar: single-element constraints

2007-10-04 Thread Mark Proctor
I've been thinking about this too, although I idea I had was for a 
default field.

List(  5 ) from collect( Bus( color == red ) )

So we could define default fields that can be used in the way you said. 
Open a jira and we'll consider this for the next major release.


Mark
Godmar Back wrote:

If a fact contains a single field, it would be nice to be able to
express a constraint on the value of that field without having to know
its name, e.g.:

Cheese (stilton)

which would be equivalent to

Cheese (type == stilton)

if Cheese contained only one field, and which would be a compile-time
error otherwise.

A similar convenience syntax is used, for instance, for Java 5
annotations. Instead of having to say @Retention(value =
RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) it can be abbreviated
@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) since this annotation only has a
single field.

 - Godmar
___
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


[rules-users] suggestion for drl grammar: single-element constraints

2007-10-03 Thread Godmar Back
If a fact contains a single field, it would be nice to be able to
express a constraint on the value of that field without having to know
its name, e.g.:

Cheese (stilton)

which would be equivalent to

Cheese (type == stilton)

if Cheese contained only one field, and which would be a compile-time
error otherwise.

A similar convenience syntax is used, for instance, for Java 5
annotations. Instead of having to say @Retention(value =
RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) it can be abbreviated
@Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) since this annotation only has a
single field.

 - Godmar
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users