It occurs to me that it would be extremely powerful to be able to do something like:

alias SomeClass.* *;

and pull in all the methods of that class into the current scope. Uses for this:

Proxy classes

class Proxy(T)
{
  ...
	alias T.* *;
}

More powerful mixins:

template Foo(T)
{
	alias T.* *;
}

class Mixed
{
  SomeClass X;
	mixin Foo!(X);
	this() { X = new SomeClass; }
}

Of course, it would be even simpler and more powerful if mixins had constructors... But that rant is already somewhere ;)

I know this approaches the "accidental inclusion of a compile-time functional language", but this would be incredibly powerful. One thought that comes to mind: this probably should not pull in operator overloads and such, only regular methods.

Thoughts?

Mike Swieton
__
It's kind of fun to do the impossible.
	- Walt Disney

isn't that what mixins are made for now?
(http://www.digitalmars.com/d/mixin.html)

In article <pan.2004.05.18.14.59.46.445402@swieton.net>, Mike Swieton says...
>
>It occurs to me that it would be extremely powerful to be able to do something like:
>
>alias SomeClass.* *;
>
>and pull in all the methods of that class into the current scope. Uses for this:
>
>Proxy classes
>
>class Proxy(T)
>{
>  ...
>	alias T.* *;
>}
>
>More powerful mixins:
>
>template Foo(T)
>{
>	alias T.* *;
>}
>
>class Mixed
>{
>  SomeClass X;
>	mixin Foo!(X);
>	this() { X = new SomeClass; }
>}
>
>Of course, it would be even simpler and more powerful if mixins had constructors... But that rant is already somewhere ;)
>
>I know this approaches the "accidental inclusion of a compile-time functional language", but this would be incredibly powerful. One thought that comes to mind: this probably should not pull in operator overloads and such, only regular methods.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Mike Swieton
>__
>It's kind of fun to do the impossible.
>	- Walt Disney
>