Why can't I inherit (extend) structs?
dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com
Mon Oct 16 16:59:34 PDT 2006
Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:49:20 +0200, Johan Granberg wrote:
>> Derek Parnell wrote:
>>> And I'd go so far as to say that the term 'inheritance' is a bit strong.
>>> Maybe just 'derivation' as we would be deriving a new struct definition
>>> from existing definitions, but there is no implied linkage between them at
>> If it is just derived from that is wanted wouldn't it bee easier with a
>> syntax like this.
>> struct foo
>> int b;
>> int c;
>> struct bar
>> int a
>> include foo;
>> int d
>> the struct bar would now have four fields (a,b,c,d)
>> this way their is no way to misunderstand it for inheritance and if one
>> want a foo* one can always take the addres of the first element.
> Hey ... not bad.
By "first element" you mean "first foo element in bar"?
Isn't that just a mixin without the namespace?
Anyway, I thought the point of this was so that you could pass a bar* to
a function that takes a foo*. If foo is jammed in somewhere in the
middle of bar then that's not so straightforward. I guess the compiler
could automatically offset the bar* to its foo part if it sees the bar*
is being used in a foo* context. But that seems kinda tricky to get right.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn