Nikita Prokopov
Nikita Prokopov
This only arises when deleting entities, right?
> [?e _ e123] That would require VAET, of course, but I can’t imagine an use-case where anybody would need that type of query. The only use-case I come up...
Thank you @bluesun, your argument is clear. I do not like the approach, it feels like misuse of the attribute field, it produces an unbounded amount of keywords, requires string...
This could be added, but would make sense only for apps that use multiple DataScript DBs. Note that Datomic’s DB id does not change as you make transaction to the...
Hi! To do this you need two rules: one finds all parents, the other only leaves the ones that are roots (have no :parent themselves). ```clj (db/q '[:find (pull ?root...
Right now self-unification in rule signature is not supported in Datascript. Maybe it should, I don’t know. I’m not sure it’s supported by Datomic even. ``` (root ?e ?e) ```...
> So the not clause should only ever remove results, never add. Is my understanding once again incorrect? It’s not about `not`, it’s about rule having two branches. Results from...
Thanks for reporting! What do you thinkg the correct behaviour should be?
> What about a rule like [(x ?a) [?a :attr ?id] (y [:id ?id])] So the idea of lookup refs is that they are resolved only when they appear at...
Probably because it comes with ClojureScript. The only way would be to rewrite it in JS