On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:22:35 -0500, Bill Baxter <wbax...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:49:01 -0500, Bill Baxter <wbax...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I think Walter had intended template mixins to take the place of
macros. They offer some features of macros but not all. So once real
macros exist, I wonder if there will be any real reason for them to
continue existing.
The thing I think macros give you over mixins is their usage is simple
and
looks like part of the API. Other than that, I don't think mixins are
any
less powerful.
Note that I was talking about template mixins, not string mixins.
Yes, template mixins seem to be less useful because you cannot simply
write statements inside a template block.
But really if we have macros, both template mixins and string mixins
may be redundant.
The nice thing about having macros be a simpler syntax to do mixins is
that mixins are a proven entity that work to do just about anything. Some
of the wizardry I've seen is amazing! I'm unsure that a) macros could
make mixins obsolete and b) macros should be significantly different than
mixins.
-Steve
