> Go for it. Sure. > I'd prefer if you wait until after we get the branch though so that I > can commit.
yeah, thats what i was planning. Given that i am situated between glen and you timewise, it should be done by the time you wake up tomorrow :) >There will also likely be a "FunctionPtg" abstract class. I guess. Some sort of factory as well, probably? Quoting "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Go for it. In general, I don't want to focus on such detail oriented > things just yet. Figure we'll change this around a couple times. > > Locally, my OperationPtg is an Abstract class inheriting from the PTG > class. There will also likely be a "FunctionPtg" abstract class. > > I'd prefer if you wait until after we get the branch though so that I > can commit. (Should happen in about 12 hours or so when Glen is awake.) > > Avik Sengupta wrote: > > >Can i suggest that we make Ptg an interface, and have an AbstractPtg class. > > > > >Seems rather incongrous to me that OperationPtg, being a subset of ptg, > should > >be an interface, while Ptg is a class. > > > >If there are no objections, i will make a patch. > > > >Regards > >- > >Avik > > > > > >
