On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Joe Kutner <jpkut
...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FYI I added the feature described in #1 to the trunk. In doing so, I
> decided that #2 really wasn't necessary.
> On Oct 4, 4:44 pm, jason <jason.franklin.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ok great to know.
> > I think that ruleby is totally fantastic actually (I think it actually
> > just saved my arse) - even if it is a pain to get into it - this is
> > primarily a problem with the documentation. (Ahh you are the joe on
> > the videohttp://
> rubyhoedown2008.confreaks.com/10-joe-kutner-ruleby-the-rule-en...
> > - excellent presentation by the way - you (someone) really needs to
> > get that on to the ruleby wiki - it really is almost a prerequisite
> > for understanding ruleby (much better) - regardless of CS background
> > or not.
> > I think adding the functionality described in #1 and #2 is the sugar
> > on top of the documentation that makes ruleby behave more like you
> > would expect it to - and would make the code very much more readable.
> > I also think that if anyone should spend time sugaring in up then to
> > bring it up more on the lines of Rspec, Mocha and ActiveRecord - I
> > think that this might open up the project to a much wider audience.
> > Users could then write stuff like:
> > describe_rules_for "some rule book" do
> > it "should do some magic stuff" do
> > given a_kind_of SomeClass with(conditions => {:aaa => bbb}) do
> > puts "some finky stuff"
> > end
> > end
> > end
> > end
> > anyway i guess you get my gist.
> > If you need any help on the wiki doc i would be more than willing to
> > punch my learnings into it as a newby after one weekend. I integrated
> > a fully functional rule book for moving nodes around a tree - and I am
> > fairly happy with the code now.
> > I would be more than happy to help coding - just at the moment I am
> > very late with this project - considering that ruleby is now part of
> > it - this would warrent investing time in the code. (some time at the
> > beginning of next year I expect).
> > Thanks again for a great project
> > Jason.
> > On Oct 4, 8:50 pm, Joe Kutner <jpkut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You are correct on all four counts.
> > > Adding the behavior you describe in #1 and #2 is certainly possible.
> > > It would be a good starting point for someone that is interested in
> > > contributing to the project.
> > > On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 9:34 AM, jason <jason.franklin.sto...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > dear groupies,
> > > > are the following DSL conditional syntax rules correct?
> > > > 1. Direct comparison of m.methods not possible:
> > > > i.e. m.foo > m.bar
> > > > therefore this will not work.
> > > > [ExistingAction, :action, m.aspirin_strength >
> > > > m.pain_threshold] do |v|
> > > > puts "relief"
> > > > end
> > > > 2. Direct comparison of bindings not possible:
> > > > i.e b(:foo) > b(:bar)
> > > > therefore this will not work.
> > > > [ExistingAction, :action, {m.aspirin_strength=> :a_s,
> > > > m.pain_threshold => :p_t}, b(:a_s) > b(p_t)] do |v|
> > > > puts "relief"
> > > > end
> > > > 3. Direct comparison between m.method with Strings, Fixnum and Sym
> > > > i.e. m.size > 20
> > > > i.e. m.message == "hello"
> > > > i.e. m.staus == :happy
> > > > therefore this will work
> > > > [ExistingAction, :action, m.aspirin_strength > 20, m.feeling ==
> > > > "awful", m.status == :unhappy] do |v|
> > > > puts "relief"
> > > > end
> > > > 4 Indirect comparison of m.methods through binding on right hand side
> > > > i.e. {m.foo => :foo}, m.bar == b(:foo)
> > > > therefore this will work
> > > > [ExistingAction, :action, {m.aspirin_strength => :a_s},
> > > > m.pain_threshold > b(:a_s)] do |v|
> > > > puts "no relief"
> > > > end
> > > > Is this correct - am i missing something?
> > > > thanks a million for feedback
> > > > jason.
|
