Thank you for the response. I guess the "variable" aspect is confusing when the zero isn't included in the set.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Michael Hunger <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes that was intentional. As the case that the start-node itself should be > included (again) in that path is a more special case. > You're right that coming from regexp that might be confusing, but so far > I've never heard/had hat association. > The star just is for "variable". > Michael > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Byron Ruth <[email protected]> wrote: >> The query: >> >> MATCH (n)-[:foo*]->() >> >> will not match if n does not have at least one foo relationship. However, >> explicitly setting the lower bound to 0 works: >> >> MATCH (n)-[:foo*0..1000]->() >> >> Was this an intentional design? Using an asterisk to impose "at least one" >> is a bit non-conventional at least in the regular expression space. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Neo4j" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google > Groups "Neo4j" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/neo4j/0xl24nDApN0/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Neo4j" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
