GLTF::Object should have a virtual destructor?

It is a common C++ design practice to always make destructors of base classes virtual, so that deleting a pointer to a base instance will call the derived constructor.

Do you guys agree? Then I'll make a patch request.

This would make fixing memory leaks in Maya2glTF easier by just keeping a vector of ``

Start by locating the declaration and uses of GLTF::Object, then inspect how derived objects are created and deleted in the converter and Maya2glTF. Confirm the ownership paths and project conventions before deciding whether a virtual destructor is appropriate; done means the design is agreed and the relevant deletion behavior is covered.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.