On Friday, 8 November 2013 at 10:22:53 UTC, Robert wrote:
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 20:48:58 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
* If a template mixin, which uses the string mixin, is
provided the syntax will look a bit nicer
I agree that template mixin syntax is a bit nicer, but I ran
into a few issues with them. In the end I settled with the
string mixin, because it avoids those issues and also was more
powerful (User can now choose the protection). How would your
template mixin wrapper look like?
Why does this need to be a mixin at all? The only reason I see is
that it introduces two declarations, but I don't see why two are
needed.
At any rate, a string mixin is not necessitated here at all, and
really hurts code readability (though mostly on the
implementation side). If you're having issues with templates,
please tell us so we can help.
