mixin + CTFE, to big a hammer??

[janderson]

janderson wrote:
> Mikola Lysenko wrote:
>> kris Wrote:
>>> D mixin, in it's current guise, is about equivalent to crack-cocaine. 
>>> Easily the worst thing that happened to the language, IMO.
>>>
>>> Just say no
>>
[snip]

>> My belief is that the basic problems with mixins result from their 
>> reliance on string manipulation for meta programming - rather than 
>> syntactic and structural concepts.  If we want to create mixin like 
>> behaviors (and I think that ultimately it is a good goal) they need to 
>> be presented in the logical context of a program manipulator - not a 
>> text processor.  The current mixin syntax needs to be aborted before 
>> we go any farther down this line of thought.  The longer it sticks 
>> around in the language, the harder it is going to be to kill.
>> I vote it gets axed in the next release.
>>
>> -Mik
> 
> I strongly disagree, we haven't even realized the full potential of 
> mixins yet.  I hope they get ingained in D because people realize they 
> are not the same as C++ macros.  They give D the potential to evolve far 
> beyond anything that C++ could ever offer.
> 
> -Joel
> 

Oh, and sorry to be so hard on C++ today.  I had to take MS C++ out the 
back today and show it who was in charge.  Dam that C++ and its limitations.

-Joel