On 2015/08/28 15:17:10, hanwenn wrote:
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.
(but use a different CL for that.) https://codereview.appspot.com/260810043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
