Graph Transaction Semantics?

[no-reply]

This is raised by: #277

Code like graph1.transaction { insert(graph2) } has different results from graph1 << graph2 where #graph_name is concerned. The former accepts existing graph names for statements; the latter replaces them.

Is this acceptable? If not, RDF::Transaction and/or RDF::Graph needs some significant reworking to handle the alternative. As it stands, it seems desirable for RDF::Transaction to have a default graph, rather than a forced one; but it's not clear how RDF::Graph can have a forced name, in that case.

[no-reply]

Closed by #280