Mixin mystic

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede at iki.fi> wrote in message 
news:gr8a9l$grv$3 at digitalmars.com...
> On December 14, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > That explains a certain mystery I encountered in a library I wrote.
> > Everything *seemed* like it should have worked with "scope" instead
> > of "auto" but it never did. The variables that were mysteriously
> > unconvertable to "scope" were declared in a mixin.
> >
> > This makes me wonder though: should mixins be implicitly creating a
> > new scope at all? Clearly there are cases where it's desireable to not
> > have that implicit scope, and with the current behavior I don't see a
> > workaround. Are there cases where an implicit new scope would be
> > desired? If so, could those cases be sufficiently worked around by
> > explicitly creating a new scope in the mixin?
>
> For some reason, nobody seemed to have read this question.
>
> One would think that the mixin not creating a new scope would be what the 
> programmer expects. Or at least hopes...
>

The other strange thing about it is that what a string mixin creates is not 
so much an implicit scope as it is an implicit "semi-scope". Ie, if you 
declare a non-scope variable in a string mixin, it'll outlive the mixin 
(which is good, string mixings would be far less useful otherwise), but with 
a normal manual scope that would not be the case.