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

[hanwenn]

On 2015/08/26 21:18:49, Dan Eble wrote:
> 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?

Yes, please chnage the commit message. Also, you might want to make sure
that the rationale is properly documented.


> Or do you object to the change on
> the grounds that someone might want to instantiate a base Grob?



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