Lasse R.H. Nielsen

Personally I'd like it. We may want a little design round, just to be safe, since this issue predates ... well, integers as they currently exist. One thing I can...

(If you think the prefix and the numbers run together, you can always do `2r0_1110_1110`. It does feel a little messy. Maybe use `2#11101101`? It's not like we allow symbols...

It would be great if we could have it (say for version 2.0, whenever that comes), since it - along with removing some of the restrictions - would allow the...

I think I'll keep it open for now. It is a wish, even for the platform libraries (our `ListMixin` duplicates code from `IterableMixin` because we can't reuse code in a...

Marking as request since this does not specify a specific approach to introducing composite mixins, just the issue that you can't.

@lukepighetti Depends on what you want it to do, but if you want the the mixin `A` to contain all the members of the mixin `B`, as well as whatever...

For the record, the SDK contains a `SetMixin` which includes copies of all of `IterableMixin` because there is no way to shared mixin code. I'd love to have mixin composition,...

@TekExplorer In short, the same reason any other thing hasn't happened: This hasn't been made a higher priority than the things that *have* happened, so the necessary resources have not...

There is a difference, a level of indirection, betwen the parameters of the primary constructor and the fields they imply (and the actual constuctor and constructor parameters that they imply...

I'd want to make sure our specification is exactly what we want, before we try to make changes to behavior. (It's probably is.) As I understand it: * The spec...