Hi,
the semantics of the match in the implementation is not as
straightforward as I thought. The fix will take some time.
I would advise that you use two rules for optional leading rule elements
for now:
"a" "b" "c"; // equal to "a"? "b" "c";
"b" "c"; // maybe with a -PARTOF()
Additionally, you
Hi,
On 23.05.2013 13:30, Peter Klügl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 23.05.2013 13:09, armin.weg...@bka.bund.de wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> In Ruta 2.0.2-SNAPSHOT, rules with an optional first element do not work.
>> The optional part seems to be mandatory. Using
>>
>> DECLARE Test;
>> "a"? "b" "c"{->MARK(Test, 1, 3
Hi,
On 23.05.2013 13:09, armin.weg...@bka.bund.de wrote:
> Hi!
>
> In Ruta 2.0.2-SNAPSHOT, rules with an optional first element do not work. The
> optional part seems to be mandatory. Using
>
> DECLARE Test;
> "a"? "b" "c"{->MARK(Test, 1, 3)};
>
> on
>
> a b c x b c
>
> marks "a b c" (0, 5) but n
Hi!
In Ruta 2.0.2-SNAPSHOT, rules with an optional first element do not work. The
optional part seems to be mandatory. Using
DECLARE Test;
"a"? "b" "c"{->MARK(Test, 1, 3)};
on
a b c x b c
marks "a b c" (0, 5) but not "b c" (8, 11).
Cheers,
Armin
