Are mixins considered a design pattern? Structural?
相关问题
- Name for a method that has only side effects
- What is a correct approach to manage test data usi
- Can a [GoF]-ConcreteSubject override the notify me
- Can the builder pattern ever be doing too much?
- Carry STRef implicitly in an environment during co
相关文章
- How to override Bootstrap mixin without modifying
- Alternatives to abstract classes in Ruby?
- Builders in Java versus C++?
- Python Mixin - Unresolved Attribute Reference [PyC
- “Adapter” or “adaptor”?
- Is copy-and-paste coding ever acceptable?
- How to Create a Custom tabBarController to simulat
- Dependency Injection Container
They're a language feature. A "pattern" is different from a feature, in that it resolves a set of forces that may influence a situation in contradictory ways. Features, by their presence or absence, tend to create the forces that patterns resolve. Many design patterns (Double Dispatch is a good example) came about to work around language limitations (in this case method dispatching on a single argument).
Yes, it is in D.
"A design pattern is a general reusable solution to a commonly occurring problem in software design" -- Wikipedia
D is compiled to machine code and with the use of mixins you can use it to make templates even more useful than they are in something like C++.
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/template-mixin.html
Yes, it is in Ruby.
Design Patterns in Ruby
Mixins are not design patterns. Most of the time they are language features!! E.g. in the language D "mixin" is a keyword. Using a keyword for its intended pupose is no pattern. Typical usages of keywords/language features might be called "idiom"s.
The hierarchie is "nothing", idiom, design pattern, architecture pattern.