is gdl-inputs::<message> always necessary?
Created by: reiniervandijk
Looking at the macro-expansion of define-object. Is it actually not undesirable to define a gdl-inputs::<message> method for computed-slots or objects (etc)? I fully understand the purpose of these methods (so, no need to explain in the comments), however I don't see their purpose in the context of :computed-slots or :objects (etc). Unless you foresee situations in which you would like to allow a parent object to also pass on information to the computed or object messages of their children... but isn't that against the nature of the language?
By genworks on 2013-10-26 03:19:09 UTC
These are necessary for potential trickle-down-slots to work properly. Maybe some could be filtered out if it is somehow known that they will never occur as trickle-downs, but for now we prefer to err on the side of being conservative.
Note that :objects and :hidden-objects are always trickle-down by default.