Yes that was intentional. As the case that the start-node itself should be included (again) in that path is a more special case.
You're right that coming from regexp that might be confusing, but so far I've never heard/had hat association. The star just is for "variable". Michael On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Byron Ruth <[email protected]> wrote: > The query: > > MATCH (n)-[:foo*]->() > > will not match if n does not have at least one foo relationship. However, > explicitly setting the lower bound to 0 works: > > MATCH (n)-[:foo*0..1000]->() > > Was this an intentional design? Using an asterisk to impose "at least one" > is a bit non-conventional at least in the regular expression space. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Neo4j" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Neo4j" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
