Why can't we derive struct's?

[Rubn]

On Monday, 24 December 2018 at 19:57:50 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/24/2018 10:10 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> If you can convince him, that would be great!
>
> You'd need very compelling use cases.
>
> It's like adding more and more horsepower to a car. At some 
> point, it doesn't make the car better.
>
> Or like operator overloading. C++ has much more expansive rules 
> for operator overloading. They lead to clever programs, and 
> some people swear by them, but are they *better* programs? For 
> example,
>
> * iostreams
>
> * regex DSL 
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e630/5f84bca36251fd5a4ffa5f00e0effc8aaa7d.pdf
>
> ? I don't buy it. I've never seen an elegant use of the more 
> expansive power (even though many insist those two examples are 
> elegant).

I feel like D's operator overloading can be equally abused as 
C++'s operator overloading. There just aren't people doing that 
with D (yet).