Phil Carmody wrote: > > --- Rick Klement <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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." > > But does that make them cycles or not?
Having the same name appears twice on the same line does NOT make a cycle. -- Rick Klement
