On 16/11/2010 14:32, Edson Tirelli wrote: > Yes, the extra "not" in front of forall is a mistake and needs to > be removed. And yes, that is how drools and (AFAIK) all Rete based > engines implement it. W,
Your permissions still working? Can you correct that? Mark > Edson > > 2010/11/16 Wolfgang Laun<wolfgang.l...@gmail.com>: >> Expert manual: >> not( forall( p1 p2 p3...)) is equivalent to writing not(p1 and >> not(and p2 p3...)) >> I think this is incorrect; it should read >> forall( p1 p2 p3...) is equivalent to writing not(p1 and not(and p2 >> p3...)) >> >> Is this also the way forall is actually implemented? >> >> -W >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-dev mailing list >> rules-dev@lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
