Re: Issue 4564: make Grob an abstract class (issue 260810043 by address@hidden)

[nine . fierce . ballads]

On 2015/08/26 11:26:56, hanwenn wrote:

> "preparation of .. " : deriving from Grob is not a feature but a risk.
In fact,
> it would even be nice if Item and Spanner could disappear, but that
seems to be
> intractable.

> I spent a giant amount of energy distangling formatting logic from C++
type
> hierarchy, so behaviors can be mixed and matched at runtime, and this
is taking
> a step in the opposite direction.

Thanks for the feedback.  David had the same concern about the rationale
in the review comment but accepted the change to the code apart from it.
 Will you also be content if I limit the rationale in the commit message
to the fact that nobody currently instantiates a base Grob?  Or do you
object to the change on the grounds that someone might want to
instantiate a base Grob?

https://codereview.appspot.com/260810043/