in 3.1 we aim to allow age == 60 || age == 70 || age == 80
However the functionality will be different compared to condition 'or'. The first will create sub rules for all logical outcomes. The above notation creates a single rule and embeds that or logic in a an alpha node. I guess the different is the first doesn't short cut, the second does.
Mark Christopher G. Stach II wrote:
I was wondering what the reasoning was behind DRLs requiring syntax like this: Person(sex == "f", age == 60) || Person(sex == "f", age == 70) || Person(sex == "f", age == 80) instead of like this: Person(sex == "f", age == 60 || age == 70 || age == 80) or even like this: Person(sex == "f", age IN ( 60, 70, 80 ))
