Yea, I just thought it would be nice to have the option to extend a default implementation instead of just override it. I guess I will just name it something else if needed, but then I need proxy functions for the 'default' implementation to get overridden. To achive the same, this is now needed:
mixin class foo
class bar : foo
I guess its not a big deal, it just seems annoying to have another layer of indirection for the 'default' behavior in this case especially since I doubt Angelscript can inline and eliminate the call for the default (presumably more often called) case. I guess it bugs me because one of the things I love most about Angelscript is how few proxy functions I need to write to get things done. Those always seemed so wasteful and ulgy to me. Code duplication is best avoided.
I understand they are macros instead of real inheritance , but why could the scope resolution operator not be allowed for them? Basically it would 'rename' mixin functions that have been overridden or just give them a 2nd name they can be accessed by. Or do these overridden functions not get compiled at all encase they now produce compile errors that are being avoided by the override?
It would bring them one step closer to being as useful as multiple inheritance without having to support MI, As multiple mixins could even have there own default implementations of the same function and the resulting class could pick what ones to call and in what order.
I actually like how mixins work more then MI, Mainly because it avoids the headache of virtual base classes in diamond inheritance when you want one variable to be accessible by multiple 'middle' classes to be derived from in various ways by other classes.
Of course, I don't know how complex this would be to add. I just thought if it was simple enough and didn't break anything, it might be considered but if not I can do without no problem.