http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2565
--- Comment #8 from Andrej Mitrovic <[email protected]> 2013-02-05 14:09:31 PST --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > (In reply to comment #5) > > > but the means should be explicit. > > > > This could be implementable via a mixin template, similar to how forwarding > > constructors were proposed in Issue9066. A general-purpose template could be > > written which could be used via: > <snip> > > // which expands to: > > override int foo() { return FooImpl.foo(); } > > override int bar() { return FooImpl.bar(); } > > Why do you need a mixin to do this? ISTM you might as well just insert these > directly in your code. In any case, what you're suggesting doesn't seem to me > to be an explicit way of using _an_ inherited method as _an_ interface > implementation. Moreover, how does it accommodate the case where FooImpl.foo > is final? Ok fair enough, the mixin definitely has its share of problems. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
