Stilton good is favourite mine. The force is strong in this one.
sent on the move On 16 Apr 2011 16:48, "Mark Proctor" <mproc...@codehaus.org> wrote: > I have the basics to backward chaining working now, using both named and > positional arguments and mix of both. Mixed positional/named syntax is > based conceptually on the RuleML proposal for POSL: > http://ruleml.org/submission/ruleml-shortation.html > > POSL provides a bridge between the positional terms, often used in > Prolog, and "slotted" names used in OO languages. POSL allows the best > of both worlds. > > I'm building out the tests, which should illustrate the behaviour and > syntax here: > https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools/tree/master/drools-compiler/src/test/java/org/drools/integrationtests/BackwardChainingTest.java > > Still lots to do to improve the over all syntax and consistency across > patterns. The last test is a geneology style test which is probably more > intesting to people. There is still an issue here when using eval. I > currently use "new Variable" to indicate an unbound unification > variable, the problem is that evals and other things generate code > expecting the original object type, say "String" and this results a cast > error (see sibling rule). I want to avoid an explicit instanceof check > for unwrapping and will be working on that over the weekend. > > There is enough there now to give people an idea of what it looks like. > I'll try and put together a "roadmap" for BC, along with more details of > the syntax next week once it all comes together. > > If anyone wants to help on this, you know where to fine me :) > irc.codehaus.org #drools > > Mark > > _______________________________________________ > 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
