Making inheritance less tedious

[janderson]

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