Mark, I could vote on this, I would vote no to the 'else'. The declarative thing about rule engines is that: no procedural code. So if you wanna do an 'else' condition you should re-think your rule and chack if its well writen. Of course this is just MHO.
:) Tuesday, April 11, 2006, 6:09:22 AM, you wrote: > I thought about adding 'else' but I couldn't decide on the best way to > implement it, as there are several possabilities. Also 'else' is not > considered declarative, so its a kinda of code smell. I'll llook into > this again in 3.1 > Mark > Geoffrey Wiseman wrote: >> On 4/10/06, Dmitry Goldenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> What is the timeframe for 3.1? Else/else if are very important to what >>> we're trying to do. >>> >>> I can see how I can to the following with the method described by >>> Geoffrey: >>> >>> if (A) then B else if (C) then D endif >>> >>> I also want to be able to do the following: >>> >>> if (A) then B else D endif >>> >>> I imagine that the rule would have to be written as a combo of >>> >>> if (A) then B endif >>> if (!A) then D endif >>> >>> so that the conditions are complimentary... >>> >>> >> >> Indeed, yes, that's how you'd handle it. >> >> If it does make it into 3.1, that's a good thing in terms of supporting the >> way people think, talk, and work in other languages, but fundamentally, the >> same capabilities are there now -- they just require more typing. >> >> - Geoffrey >> -- >> Geoffrey Wiseman >> >> -------------------------- Felipe Piccolini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
