Hi,
On 04/08/2011 03:25 PM, Omid wrote:
I expected to be able to use patterns for name of node& property
definition in node types. But it doesn't work, and it's mentioned in
specification that other than simple name, only * pattern can be used
that matches all unmatched items with property type. Is there a reason
for not allowing more flexible patterns?
I had a look into source and it seems fairly easy to implement this,
should I go on and do so?
Do you have a good use case where you'd need such a feature? Why can't
that use case be covered with the existing * pattern?
--
Jukka Zitting
