> "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
The documentation for validObject suggests that slots are checked for
validity, but validObject seems only to check that the slot has
something claiming to be correct; validObject(obj) does not perform
the equivalent of validObject([EMAIL PROTECTED]) for slot y.
This is also the second problem iss
