What are Mixins (as a concept)

Before going into what a mix-in is, it’s useful to describe the problems it’s trying to solve. Say you have a bunch of ideas or concepts you are trying to model. They may be related in some way but they are orthogonal for the most part — meaning they can stand by themselves independently of each other. Now you might model this through inheritance and have each of those concepts derive from some common interface class. Then you provide concrete methods in the derived class that implements that interface.

The problem with this approach is that this design does not offer any clear intuitive way to take each of those concrete classes and combine them together.

The idea with mix-ins is to provide a bunch of primitive classes, where each of them models a basic orthogonal concept, and be able to stick them together to compose more complex classes with just the functionality you want — sort of like legos. The primitive classes themselves are meant to be used as building blocks. This is extensible since later on you can add other primitive classes to the collection without affecting the existing ones.

Getting back to C++, a technique for doing this is using templates and inheritance. The basic idea here is you connect these building blocks together by providing them via the template parameter. You then chain them together, eg. via typedef, to form a new type containing the functionality you want.

Taking your example, let say we want to add a redo functionality on top. Here’s how it might look like:

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

struct Number
{
  typedef int value_type;
  int n;
  void set(int v) { n = v; }
  int get() const { return n; }
};

template <typename BASE, typename T = typename BASE::value_type>
struct Undoable : public BASE
{
  typedef T value_type;
  T before;
  void set(T v) { before = BASE::get(); BASE::set(v); }
  void undo() { BASE::set(before); }
};

template <typename BASE, typename T = typename BASE::value_type>
struct Redoable : public BASE
{
  typedef T value_type;
  T after;
  void set(T v) { after = v; BASE::set(v); }
  void redo() { BASE::set(after); }
};

typedef Redoable< Undoable<Number> > ReUndoableNumber;

int main()
{
  ReUndoableNumber mynum;
  mynum.set(42); mynum.set(84);
  cout << mynum.get() << '\n';  // 84
  mynum.undo();
  cout << mynum.get() << '\n';  // 42
  mynum.redo();
  cout << mynum.get() << '\n';  // back to 84
}

You’ll notice I made a few changes from your original:

• The virtual functions really aren’t necessary here because we know exactly what our composed class type is at compile-time.
• I’ve added a default value_type for the second template param to make its usage less cumbersome. This way you don’t have to keep typing <foobar, int> everytime you stick a piece together.
• Instead of creating a new class that inherits from the pieces, a simple typedef is used.

Note that this is meant to be a simple example to illustrate the mix-in idea. So it doesn’t take into account corner cases and funny usages. For example, performing an undo without ever setting a number probably won’t behave as you might expect.

As a sidenote, you might also find this article helpful.