Why there are no 'physical' object variables (only references)?

[Kristian]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 16:09:23 +0300, Frits van Bommel  
<fvbommel at REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> wrote:
[snip]
>>  The 'Coord' objects have no 'global meaning' here, they are just  
>> simple values used in calculations. (So there is no need to reference  
>> them from other parts of the code.)
>>  I think it's a big restriction if a language does not have both the  
>> variable types (physical + references).
>> Why D and other similar languages have no physical types?
>
> I think D structs are the "physical" variable type you're looking for.
> They allow everything above.
[snip]

Ah, of course, basic types can be usually implemented as structures,  
thanks. :)

Unfortunately some of the types have to be implemented as classes (e.g. a  
file class) because of the inheritance and/or constructors/destructors.

Hmm, what if structures could have interfaces and  
constructors/destructors... and what the heck, inheritance too? Hehheh,  
this way we would have 'physical classes' for local use and 'reference  
classes' for global use. Or we could have a new data type instead:

type Coord {...}  //like a class except its objects do not use referencing

That would be weird... or would it?