At the risk of sounding like an idiot for stating the obvious ... why not create a (dummy) inverse relationship (Child.activeParent)? No one says you have to use it ... or heck, maybe you want to use it.
Parent.children <-------->> Child.parent Parent.activeChild <---------> Child.activeParent I just tested this and it works as expected. IE: setting Parent.activeChild to different children between saves cleans up both ends of the relationship automatically (each subsequent child's 'activeParent' field was automatically cleared when I set a different child to the Parent.activeChild property). I don't know, maybe I missed something. -Luther On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Alex Zavatone <z...@mac.com> wrote: > > On Jun 24, 2013, at 8:52 PM, Graham Cox wrote: > > > Grocers (or should that be Grocer's?) are the only profession allowed to > use an apostrophe to indicate that there's an 's' about to come up at the > end of the word. > > That's not even a valid excuse. > _______________________________________________ > > Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) > > Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. > Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com > > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/lutherbaker%40gmail.com > > This email sent to lutherba...@gmail.com > _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
