Mixin a constructor ?

[Christopher Wright]

Michel Fortin wrote:
> 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.

Also if you could implement a function from an interface with a template 
mixin.