Ton Hospel wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Rick Klement <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > .... .... > > .... ... > > ... .... > > .. ... > > . .. > > > > there is a node name '....' that is both in a relationship and is included > > as an "isolated" node. I believe that is legal. > > > duh ? But then it's not isolated ! Seems pretty weird to rule this valid. > Anyways, whatever you do, this deserves a rules update.
I have always viewed the use of the "isolated node" entry as a way to guarantee a particular node name would be present in the output, independent of whether it is a relationship or not. That's why I believe this is legal. You are right, though, this does deserve a rules update. "Nodes that are isolated nodes (the name appears twice on the same line), can also be in a relationship to other nodes." The web page rules section will be updated as soon as feasible. -- Rick Klement
