On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/17/11 12:07 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: >> >> getAncestorOf/getDescendantOf ? Or use getAscendant/getDescendant ? >> Yeah getAncestorOf/getDescendantOf sounds like it flows better and >> clarifies that we're taking this from the dn the operation is applied >> to. > > I like it better too. Will rename to use those names.
Well hold on a second with the getDescendantOf operation. I think we have some outstanding issues with it. Please see my previous post. Regards, Alex
