"Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16@deming-os.org> wrote in message news:c79osk$2ggk$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew wrote:
> >>Could I say that the Ranges mixin could also be (hackishly) implemented
> >>like this:
> >>
> >>class Range(C) : C
> >>{
> >>    ...various fields here...
> >>}
> >>
> >>
> >>And then the class which mixes it would be defined like this:
> >>
> >>
> >>template ListBase(T,B)
> >>{
> >>   public class List
> >>         : B                      // base class
> >>         , mixes Ranges    // Note: do not need to specify mixing class,
> >>     {
> >>     }
> >>}
> >
> >
> > Yes
> >
> >
> >>// Can you use the template shortcut syntax for a typedef?
> >>// If so, a typedef would be better hre.
> >>template class List(T, B = EmptyBase) : Range(ListBase(T,B)) {};
> >>
> >>
> >>Obviously, this is a more hackish solution, plus it has more class overhead.  Also, in this scenario, Range cannot provide implementations for members of interfaces that List might want to export.  But otherwise, does it accomplish nearly the same purpose?
> >
> > Sorry, dude, I just don't get it. Can you explain this example more
thoroughly?
>
> What I was trying to illustrate is that you can define a template which
> adds member functions to an existing class, which is sort of like a
> mixin.  However, I like your mixin syntax because
> 1) Looks cleaner
> 2) You only declare 1 class, rather than 3 (List rather than
> List->Range(ListBase)->ListBase)
> 3) In your mixin definition, you can have List implement an interface
> which includes some functions from List and some from Range.  This is
> not possible with the template solution.
>

Mixins can be a different construct, like a struct/class/interface.