2006/2/7, Michael Neale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I am pretty sure it is, within the bounds of what is already there. > > You kind of suggested one way yourself. On each rule row, have an extra > action (which you can hide if you like) that changes a value to stop the > "default" from firing.
Aren't I great ;-) >From the sounds of it, you are imagining a switch statement, which means you > are looking at top to bottom operation. If you only want one rule to fire, > and then the rules to stop processing, you can achieve all this by simply > having a rule with no conditions applying (not sure if that is what you > want). Yes, top to bottom, but the last rule should only fire if none of the previous ones fired.... Initially I'll go for the first option, but to me it sounds like a nice enhancement Tia...
