TropicalPenguin commented on issue #343: URL: https://github.com/apache/age/issues/343#issuecomment-1342211054
Good question; noting the approach that @jrgemignani described in an earlier issue... > First, and foremost, we try to implement the openCypher specification as closely as possible. Where there is ambiguity or vagueness in the openCypher specification, we look to Neo4j for possible clarification. When there is still ambiguity or vagueness, we try to think of what our user base would expect - what makes sense. .. and since [the latest openCypher spec](https://s3.amazonaws.com/artifacts.opencypher.org/openCypher9.pdf) still documents the a=b syntax, I think it should be supported. Now, personally - given the influence Neo4J has over Cypher's evolution - I also think the new syntax should be supported too. Maybe given that you're asking the question, this is sufficient to indicate 'ambiguity or vagueness', if not in the specification then certainly in what the user base would expect :upside_down_face: . -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
