Mixin a constructor ?

[Michel Fortin]

On 2009-09-19 21:17:36 -0400, language_fan <foo at bar.com.invalid> said:

> Since the constructor has no meaning outside classes, should it be
> interpreted as a free function if mixed in a non-class context? I really
> wonder how this could be valid code. Does the grammar even support the
> 3rd line?

Personally, I'd like it very much if functions from template mixins 
could overload with functions from outside the mixin. It'd allow me to 
replace string mixins with template mixins in quite a few places.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/