"Using these components, a relatively easy-to-read..."

I don't think you mean the same thing here as "components" in Rules terminology since this seems to refer to what you previously called "elements". I'd propose changing the description to follow the Rules terminology:

"Using these elements, a relatively easy-to-read..."

The third sentence in the same paragraph reads "Additionally, a condition set (rule) is provided to evaluate results from a set of actions as a condition." The problem is "as a condition" appears to be a dangling modifier since it does not refer to "a set of actions", making this percise but difficult to read. I propose changing this sentence to read:

"Additionally, a "condition set (rule)" rules component is provided that evaluates as a condition based on results from a set of actions."

This is not as precise as the original but I think it's a little more understandable because the modifier is no longer dangling and it puts the "condition set (rule) in Rules terminology.

Lastly, thanks for the start of a much needed module.

Eric

Comments

zhangtaihao’s picture

Thanks.

You're right. The word "component" is the wrong usage. I wrote that when I first started to investigate extending Rules, the underlying architecture of which can be very confusing indeed. I am only now filling most of the gaps in my mind about Rules implementation.

I have updated the project description to fix the issues you mentioned. In fact, I have reduced most of the redundancy in the description to try to make it concise.

What do you think?

eric__’s picture

Very nice. Thank you.

zhangtaihao’s picture

Status: Active » Fixed

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.

Anonymous’s picture

Issue summary: View changes

Clarifies clarification.