Re: fo.InlineLevel -- make abstract?

2005-01-05 Thread Simon Pepping
I agree as well.

Regards, Simon

On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:39:14AM +0100, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
 I think, you are right. They should be abstract.
 
 On 04.01.2005 00:47:29 Glen Mazza wrote:
  Any problem with making fo.InlineLevel an abstract
  class?  Any reason why you made it instantiable--or
  was this just an oversight?  (Actually, anyone know
  why we're not making FObj and FObjMixed abstract as
  well?  I might be missing something here...)
 
 
 
 Jeremias Maerki
 

-- 
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl



Re: fo.InlineLevel -- make abstract?

2005-01-05 Thread Glen Mazza
Done.  Thanks both for the quick response.

Glen

--- Simon Pepping [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I agree as well.
 
 Regards, Simon
 
 On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 09:39:14AM +0100, Jeremias
 Maerki wrote:
  I think, you are right. They should be abstract.
  
  On 04.01.2005 00:47:29 Glen Mazza wrote:
   Any problem with making fo.InlineLevel an
 abstract
   class?  Any reason why you made it
 instantiable--or
   was this just an oversight?  (Actually, anyone
 know
   why we're not making FObj and FObjMixed abstract
 as
   well?  I might be missing something here...)
  
  
  
  Jeremias Maerki
  
 
 -- 
 Simon Pepping
 home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
 
 



Re: fo.InlineLevel -- make abstract?

2005-01-04 Thread Jeremias Maerki
I think, you are right. They should be abstract.

On 04.01.2005 00:47:29 Glen Mazza wrote:
 Any problem with making fo.InlineLevel an abstract
 class?  Any reason why you made it instantiable--or
 was this just an oversight?  (Actually, anyone know
 why we're not making FObj and FObjMixed abstract as
 well?  I might be missing something here...)



Jeremias Maerki