On 27 March 2012 20:19, Mark Proctor <mproc...@codehaus.org> wrote: > On 27/03/2012 18:39, Wolfgang Laun wrote: > > I think you misunderstood the intent of the proposal. It's not that I > propose > a reusable CE element combination which might indeed be a query. I proposed > a parameterized sequence of lexical tokens, aka macro. I trust that you > know > C and the C preprocessor: I want a macro, not a function. > > I completely agree. It's one of the reasons why I've not pushed > drools-templates more. Because we also have "dsl" which are just another > form of templating. I'd prefer both those ideas where condensed into a > proper macro language. But it will take a lot of thought. >
There are some things you can't do without, and some design decisions: - Original line numbers must be preserved for subsequent processors. - There must be an option for preserving the expansion text. - Macro-time statements (conditional expansion) is powerful but more difficult (to implement & to use). - Recursion is most likely an overkill; handle "recursive calls" as in the C preprocessor. - Think about token concatenation, as in the C preprocessor. - Think about stringification, as in the C preprocessor. - Think about variable argument lists, parenthesized arguments,... We might experiment with C's preprocessor, perhaps even m4, and see how it goes... -W > > > Mark > > > -W > > > > On 27 March 2012 19:07, Mark Proctor <mproc...@codehaus.org> wrote: > >> query can somewhat help for re-usable elements, as per "Add CE >> templates". You can wrap elements in a query and use that inside a >> rule, remember our queries are reactive if you leave off the ?. >> >> Mark >> >> On 27/03/2012 10:02, Wolfgang Laun wrote: >> > I've collected a few things I've been moaning about... They are >> > intended to make DRL programming more convenient, given the current >> > set of the Engine's capabilities, i.e., enhance Drools' usability! >> > >> > AFAIK, none of these proposals would break backward compatibility. >> > >> > Cheers >> > Wolfgang >> > >> > >> > On 27/03/2012, Mark Proctor<mproc...@codehaus.org> wrote: >> >> I've put up a wiki page to collect thoughts on ideas that would involve >> >> breaking backwards compatability in Drools. It's aimed to produce ideas >> >> for Drools 6.0. >> >> >> >> No suggestion is too silly, think of it as a brainstorming area for >> >> alternative syntaxes and behaviours to what we have now, so knock >> >> yourself out. >> >> https://community.jboss.org/wiki/BreakingChangesSuggestions >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-dev mailing list >> rules-dev@lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing > listrules-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://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
