On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Craig Taverner <cr...@amanzi.com> wrote:
>
> (I also noticed that reading the examples with and() correctly indicates
> that the order of definition is irrelevant, while includes() almost implies
> that the first relationship type has some kind of precedence. Could it?)
I get that feeling as well. Another feeling I get with includes() is that it
might be possible to do the following:
Expansion<Relationship> expansion = startNode.expand( KNOWS );
expansion.includes( LIKES );
expansion.includes( LOVES );
for (Node node : expansion.nodes()) {
...
}
With includes() one gets the feeling that the above would expand LOVES,
LIKES and KNOWS relationships, but it will in fact only expand KNOWS
relationships. With and() I don't think that mistake would be as common.
Cheers,
--
Tobias Ivarsson <tobias.ivars...@neotechnology.com>
Hacker, Neo Technology
www.neotechnology.com
Cellphone: +46 706 534857
_______________________________________________
Neo4j mailing list
User@lists.neo4j.org
https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
