Making inheritance less tedious

[janderson]

janderson wrote:
> Kevin Bealer wrote:
>> I've often thought that in C++ I could achieve neat results by copying 
>> the vector,
>> string, and map classes and adding my own functionality, but there is the
>> annoyance of duplicating the half dozen or so string constructors.  
>> The simplest
>> c++ syntax I have found is this (not tested):
>>
>> class MyString : string {
>> public:
>>     template<A>   MyString(A x) : string(x) {}
>>     template<A,B>  MyString(A x, B y) : string(x,y) {}
>>     template<A,B,C> MyString(A x, B y, C z) : string(x,y,z) {}
>> };
> [snip]
> 
> This is where I think well designed mixins really start showing their 
> power.  The problem in C++ is that the base classes are not written in 
> the mixin design pattern, probably because its yet another level of C++ 
> complexity to add.  In D mixins are easy, so theres is really no excuse.
> 
> Having said that I don't think they solve this problem entirely.
> 
> =Joel

I should clarify, I'm talking about the template mixins, not the ones 
that take a string.

-Joel