Hi, On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:43 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Tree.hasProperty(*) implies !parent.hasProperty(*), so there's no need to > check for both.
That should read: "parent.hasProperty(*) implies parent.exists(), ..." BR, Jukka Zitting
Hi, On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:43 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Tree.hasProperty(*) implies !parent.hasProperty(*), so there's no need to > check for both.
That should read: "parent.hasProperty(*) implies parent.exists(), ..." BR, Jukka Zitting