Re: fo.InlineLevel -- make abstract?
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?
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?
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