Property discussion wrap-up

[Zach the Mystic]

On Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 05:24:56 UTC, Zach the Mystic 
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 05:20:51 UTC, Zach the Mystic 
> wrote:
>> You know, I was too dumb to even understand what you wrote 
>> when I read it the first time. I was just naively assuming 
>> that nested structs were like nested functions. Some rules 
>> definitely need to be figured out here. I don't see why the 
>> basic functionality which is provided for nested functions 
>> couldn't work also for nested structs. Does "static struct" 
>> mean anything here? Couldn't it be used exactly like static 
>> nested functions? Would it break code if we now forced people 
>> to say "static struct" instead of just struct?
>>
>> I'm sorry for missing your point. I'm trying to suggest 
>> advanced language features without even knowing some of the 
>> basics. I ask you to bear with me.
>
> Wait, hold on there! This says otherwise: 
> http://dlang.org/struct.html
>
> So what's up? Who's wrong!?

Okay, so now I'm really foolish! I think my ORIGINAL response, to 
use "outer", would actually make a lot of sense here! 
outer.outer.outer... ad infinitum. Not only, but when the struct 
has no data of its own, the compiler silently eliminates the 
pointer in question.