You're right. The L causes a syntax error at compile time.
Outside, an eval, I ran into range problems. I was trying to multiply a bunch
of integers. The product was outside the range of an integer and I ended up
with garbage. One way around it would have been to force the operands of the
hmmm.. in an eval it *should* work - I assume there is a compile error that
mentions the L ?
well this should not be a problem in 3.2, but for 3.0.x we can certainly
look at it if you have a unit test.
A literal outside of an eval shouldn't be needed - as the type is inferenced
from the facts au
Is there a way to create a long literal in a rule condition?
Typing 30L results in a syntax error because of the L at the end. The error
occurs even if I put this literal in eval.
--Aziz
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.or
