OK, done; and few nits near by. I may have to run local builds of the docs. Some things don't look right in the docbook source.
Cheers -W On 16 November 2010 16:33, Mark Proctor <mproc...@codehaus.org> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list rules-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
