Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-09-19 21:17:36 -0400, language_fan <f...@bar.com.invalid> said:
Since the constructor has no meaning outside classes, should it be
interpreted as a free function if mixed in a non-class context? I really
wonder how this could be valid code. Does the grammar even support the
3rd line?
Personally, I'd like it very much if functions from template mixins
could overload with functions from outside the mixin. It'd allow me to
replace string mixins with template mixins in quite a few places.
Also if you could implement a function from an interface with a template
mixin.
