-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Chad J wrote:
> Regarding template mixins, I'm curious, why is the decision to mixin a
> template made at the call site and not at the declaration of the
> template/mixin?
>
> In other words, why do we write
>
> template foo()
> {
> // etc..
> }
>
> mixin foo!();
>
> instead of
>
> mixin foo()
> {
> // etc..
> }
>
> foo!();
>
> ??
>
> It seems to me like in most cases you determine whether or not you want
> to mixin based on the contents of the template, not based on the the
> calling code. Not to mention, declaring as a mixin would allow us to
> omit that mixin keyword anytime we want to do something cool with
> template mixins. So it seems odd to me as I reflect on it.
Not sure what the original choice was based on, but what you suggest
looks wrong to me. You aren't necessarily using a template in order to
mix it in somewhere.
With that syntax it looks like you can only use foo as a mixin. If you
change 'mixin' to 'paste' your way round looks even more wrong.
- --
My enormous talent is exceeded only by my outrageous laziness.
http://www.ssTk.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iD8DBQFKjtsnT9LetA9XoXwRAipLAJ92/vE9Ofmb0sJpOqoqIYyctT6MNgCgl0IH
MdLpTZ582D7iJ9j06dcTpa4=
=5yW1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
