Dehlvi, in his famous book الفوز الكبير في أصول التفسير, page 59, accepts this claim, but adds that the hadeeth "no bequest for an heir" explains the "abrogation."
He does not elaborate, but I think that he is referring to the point he made several times throughout the book, namely, that the meaning of the word "naskh" is much more general than the strict definition of the foundationists. That is, the word means "any subsequent statement regarding a prior ruling." If that is what he meant, then I certainly agree and it would also mean that he did not actually believe that this case is an abrogation case, but rather an elaboration.
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.