See my remarks inline. On 22 September 2010 17:03, Mark Proctor <[email protected]> wrote:
> So things that are doing are: > > Single binding on 'or' > $binding : ( Pattern() || Pattern() ) > > We are thinking of only allowing 'or' between patterns and not allowing > users to mix and match 'or' and '||'. Inside of patterns '||' is the only > connective allowed and will remain so. > OK, a clear distinction avoids confusion. > > We will also probably make a choice and only allow infix 'or' and 'and', at > the moment users can chose infix or prefix. Personally I find prefix quite > attractive as it works sort of like a "choice": > (or Person( ... ) > Person( ... ) > Person( ...) ) > > But I think most peopel are more comfortable with infix: > (Person( ... ) or > Person( ... ) or > Person( ...) ) > > (name ... ) is neither function style nor infix, so removing yet another way of writing expressions is OK. Let's infix. > return value, eval, literal constraint, variable constraint are going. > These are left overs of a Clips based grammar. So instead we'll have a > generic "expr" class that follow more common modern ASTs for expression > engines, like say MVEL. > OK! > > Davide has also requested that we make $ prefix mandatory for LHS bindings > as that is deterministic and again makes the grammar cleaner. > I don't understand why it should be "cleaner". After all, a '$' could even result from a Java identifier although this is discouraged, according to the Language Spec. I personally like it being optional and it's still open to debate. But I > recognise the need to have better maintained grammar, that is more > consistent and regular with easy to main documentation. > > There's one thing that would help: Make the NT identifiers in the grammar "user friendly". I had to replace all of them with NT identifiers that are self-explanatory. Also, whenever possible, stick to the terms in the Java grammar if it's the same thing, e.g. "QualifiedIdentifier", "Block", "Expression", etc. -W > Mark > > > Some rules can be omitted if they coincide with Java's own rules; just add > an explanation. > > -W > > > On 22 September 2010 14:56, Anstis, Michael (M.) <[email protected]>wrote: > >> What was the service and was it the ANTLR grammar you uploaded to >> generate the images? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mike >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Laun >> Sent: 22 September 2010 13:38 >> To: Rules Dev List >> Subject: [rules-dev] Drools syntax diagrams - redrawn >> >> I've found this online service and stuffed the Drools grammar into it. >> >> You may see the results while they are still there: >> http://www-cgi.uni-regensburg.de/~brf09510/syntax.tmp/x45371x0x0x.ebnf.h >> tml<http://www-cgi.uni-regensburg.de/%7Ebrf09510/syntax.tmp/x45371x0x0x.ebnf.h%0Atml> >> <http://www-cgi.uni-regensburg.de/%7Ebrf09510/syntax.tmp/x45371x0x0x.ebn >> f.html<http://www-cgi.uni-regensburg.de/%7Ebrf09510/syntax.tmp/x45371x0x0x.ebn%0Af.html> >> > >> >> -W >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing > [email protected]https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev > >
_______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
