template mixins vs. string mixins

[Simen kjaeraas]

Trass3r <un at known.com> wrote:

> In the past template mixins were a neat special usecase of templates.  
> Now with the "mixin template()" syntax they've become a separate thing  
> because you can add special code for handling them, e.g. allowing them  
> to add constructors to classes.
>
> The question is: what is their right to exist? Is there anything you can  
> do with them you can't with string mixins (or vice versa)?

String mixins are, strictly speaking, more powerful than template mixins.
However, the syntax is unwieldy in comparison.

-- 
Simen