Details
Minor Description
Hey Peter...
I have two examples where rules using | and & presumably miss out matches. However, this may be cause by other steps of the execution process than these rule elements since I couldn't find a bug in ComposedRuleElement class. Hopefully, you can enlighten me on this. I used the Workbench to test this:
- Example 1
Text:
A B A B
Script:
DECLARE A, B, C;
"A" {-> A};
"B" {-> B};
((B A) | ("B" "A")){-> C} W;
I'd expect a C annotation on "B A" here, but it only outputs the A and B annotations from the first 2 rules. On the other hand, if I replace the | with &, it creates a C as exprected. That doesn't seem right. | should be a less strong condition.
- Example 2
Text (same):
A B A B
Script:
DECLARE A, B, C;
"A" {-> A};
"B" {-> B};
((B A) & ("B" "A")){-> C} @W;
Here, its the other way around, meaning that a C annotation is created using |, but not &. I don't see way either the direction or the use of &/| should make any difference in this case.
Thanks,
Michael
Btw: Can I assign this issue myself and just unable to find the button for that or do I lack permission?
Attachments
Issue Links
- links to