>
> CompositionModel is an abstract interface class. However, there is
> only one class that implements the interface, CompositionModelImpl. To
> me, an abstract class with only a single deriver is extra code to read
> that doesn't add anything. Does anyone have any objections to me
> getting rid of the abstract interface CompositionModel and renaming the
> concrete CompositionModelImpl to CompositionModel? (Actually combining
> the two as we can't just get rid of CompositionModel which contains some
> important typedefs and whatnot.)
Like Michael, I've wondered why we needed that. I assumed there must be a
reason for it, but I have no idea what. I don't see anything that would
break.
Tom Breton (Tehom)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
Build for Windows Store.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
[email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
