mixin + CTFE, to big a hammer??

[John Reimer]

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:23:15 -0700, Hasan Aljudy wrote:

>> 
>> Two versions?? 
>> 
>> I meant mixins... I was referring to mixin's alone, not CTFE.
>> mixin's aren't the loveliest or most reliable feature to enter the D
>> arsenal. And it's unfortunate if the language ends up adopting the mixin
>> syntax as a base for experimenting with certain features.
>> 
>> -JJR
> 
> well, mixins are 3 versions old ... not to be confused with template 
> mixins, which is a totally different thing.


Ok, my mistake?  Got to love overloaded keywords; suddenly they remove the
argument completely from one's grasp. :)

-JJR