Thanks! Yes, supporting both ways would be cool. On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Thejas M Nair <te...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> > > > On 9/26/10 10:50 AM, "Russell Jurney" <russell.jur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > How do you filter a relation by a field NOT matching a regex? > > B = FILTER A BY NOT(field_foo matches 'test'); > > > > > You would think this would work, but it does not: B = FILTER A BY > field_foo > > NOT matches 'test' > > Yes, I think it would make sense to support this sytnax as well. It is more > readable. It already supports 'is not null', so this will be consistent. > > > > > Russ > > > > >
