> "JMC" == John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:33:59 -0500 writes:
JMC> Martin Morgan wrote:
>> Thanks John for the reply and explanation. I sometimes
>> use validObject interactively, and in those circumstances
>> it might be nice to be able to r
Martin Morgan wrote:
>Thanks John for the reply and explanation. I sometimes use validObject
>interactively, and in those circumstances it might be nice to be able
>to require recursive validity checking, e.g., with an optional
>argument.
>
>
Sounds reasonable. After some complicated replaceme
Thanks John for the reply and explanation. I sometimes use validObject
interactively, and in those circumstances it might be nice to be able
to require recursive validity checking, e.g., with an optional
argument.
Martin
John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem is over-ambitious d
The problem is over-ambitious documentation. Recursively running the
checks on slots for all validObject calls would be a fairly serious
efficiency hit. Objects are checked for validity when created, other
than as the default object, so assuming the slot objects to be as
claimed is reasonable
