Re: TableStepper>table

[Michael McClary <michael@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From tribble@xxxxxxxx Sun Apr 29 20:44:34 1990
> 
> is there any reason to be able to get the table from a tableStepper?
> This doesn't get used anywhere, and I can't think of a reason to want.
> Especially since I have some table steppers that don't actually have
> an underlying table.

What is the method you'd like to get rid of?  A generic message
to suck out the generic innards of a generic stepper, or a message
specific to table steppers?  If the former, eliminating the message
could be hazardous, but you might be able to replace the message in
the phony table-steppers with something to fake up a class that has
the same behavior as a table even if it isn't one.

	michael