On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 03:37:36AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > I don't mind this in-between state. It is a funny layering violating > from an OO standpoint, but it's not like we expect an unbounded set of > concrete types to "inherit" from the source struct. Yeah, this was exactly my thinking when writing up the changes for this round. Since all of the "sub-classes" are local to the bulk-checkin.o compilation unit, I don't have grave concerns about one implementation peering into the details of another's. Gotta stop somewhere ;-). Thanks, Taylor
