Well,
fromDepth is
public static Evaluator fromDepth( final int depth )
{
return new Evaluator()
{
public Evaluation evaluate( Path path )
{
return path.length() < depth ?
Evaluation.EXCLUDE_AND_CONTINUE : Evaluation.INCLUDE_AND_CONTINUE;
}
};
}
So it is inclusive. Given these, fromDepth(1) && toDepth(1) will not
return anything. Have not checked though. Feels like you have a point
there. Mattias, WDYT?
Also, atDepth(0) should return the start node?
public static Evaluator atDepth( final int depth )
{
return new Evaluator()
{
public Evaluation evaluate( Path path )
{
return path.length() < depth ?
Evaluation.EXCLUDE_AND_CONTINUE : Evaluation.INCLUDE_AND_PRUNE;
}
};
}
/peter
Cheers,
/peter neubauer
GTalk: neubauer.peter
Skype peter.neubauer
Phone +46 704 106975
LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/neubauer
Twitter http://twitter.com/peterneubauer
http://www.neo4j.org - NOSQL for the Enterprise.
http://startupbootcamp.org/ - Öresund - Innovation happens HERE.
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Alex <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Peter
>
> it admittedly makes little sense to use fromDepth(0) & toDepth(0) because
> there's obviously no need to run the query at all. Anyway, I'd expect a
> behavior consistent with, for example fromDepth(1) & toDepth(1), which
> returns only nodes at depth 1 (if I'm not mistaken). So, I'd definitely
> modify the code for the sake of consistency. For the same reason, atDepth(0)
> should also return the start node.
>
> Cheers
> Alex
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://neo4j-community-discussions.438527.n3.nabble.com/zero-fromDepth-and-toDepth-tp3474825p3476040.html
> Sent from the Neo4j Community Discussions mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> Neo4j mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
>
_______________________________________________
Neo4j mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
