No changes.  I *do* need to walk the subclass tree because I don't
have any way of determining how far up the subclass hierarchy to
invoke the delete by index calls.  I *think* this has the potential
to leave stale index keys present in the superclasses of the table
who's forget-by-index was invoked, but in practice those are always
done by relationships to indexes defined by the base table so they
*shouldn't* be present in the superclasses of the target table.  The
sole possible exception are narrowed relationships, but I can't think
of anyplace where I've narrowed a Components/Children/Details relationship.
In fact, I think if you tried to do that you'd break the code that gets
manufactured, because the narrowing was designed for narrowing the scope
of containers, not for narrowing the type specs of elements.