Can we just have struct inheritence already?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Sunday, June 9, 2019 12:52:20 PM MDT Exil via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sunday, 9 June 2019 at 18:43:01 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 9, 2019 12:19:34 PM MDT Exil via Digitalmars-d
> >
> > wrote:
> >> On Sunday, 9 June 2019 at 17:57:05 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, June 9, 2019 11:35:28 AM MDT KnightMare via
> >> >
> >> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >> >> On Sunday, 9 June 2019 at 17:26:40 UTC, SashaGreat wrote:
> >> >> >> PS need to allow edit post for 5min at at least
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Or you can:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 1) Revise it better before posting.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2) If you use e-mail instead of WEB Front-End, some
> >> >> > e-mail services and applications (Like Thunderbird)
> >> >> > allows you to hold it for some time before sending.
> >> >>
> >> >> people make mistakes that can't be changed.
> >> >> 1) please dont write AI for people control system :)
> >> >> 2) too complicated.
> >> >> my suggestion (allow to edit post in next 5mins) is more
> >> >> humane.
> >> >
> >> > This is a newsgroup which can also be accessed via a web
> >> > interface and via a mailing list. Once a message has been
> >> > sent, it's been sent. It immediately goes out to everyone
> >> > over the various interfaces, and it wouldn't make any more
> >> > sense to try to edit your message after sending it than it
> >> > would to try to edit an e-mail after you sent it to hundreds
> >> > of people.
> >> >
> >> > - Jonathan M Davis
> >>
> >> Github also sends messages via email, you can even make
> >> replies by email. You can still edit them afterwards though.
> >
> > But no one gets those updates without looking at github, and
> > even if they did, it would have to be via a new e-mail,
> > cluttering things up. It's not possible for anyone to edit
> > their message on github and then have the e-mails that everyone
> > received update. The e-mails from github serve as notifications
> > of what's on the website, not as the primary means of
> > communication.
>
> That's because emails aren't suited for this type of
> communication. If you want to use emails, then yes you would then
> receive a second email. But if someone needs to make a correction
> anyways, they will need to send a second email as well. This not
> only clutters up the email but also the website as well. Which is
> what we have now.

Mailing lists have worked quite well for this type of communication for
decades. So have newsgroups. And if you just reread what you're posting
before you post it, you can avoid needing to edit it or send a response to
your message to correct it. As it is, only a small percentage of posts in
this newsgroup end up with the poster replying to correct their post.

> > And for D, the web interface is _not_ what controls the data.
> > It's a client just like my e-mail client is and just like
> > Walter's newsgroup client is. So, all it can edit is its local
> > cache, which would make it out-of-sync with everyone else. Or
> > it could send out a second message - which is exactly what you
> > have to do right now. And because that's what you have to do,
> > it doesn't give the false impression that you can edit
> > previously sent messages.
> >
> > - Jonathan M Davis
>
> And? This is set in stone? There's no way to implement something
> better?

Many of us use the mailing list or newsgroup interfaces and have no interest
in using the web interface. If the web interface can be improved in ways
that work well with the newsgroup and the mailing list interfaces, then
fine. Have at it. But editing messages really doesn't work well with that.
And if you want to move away from the backend being a newsgroup with a
mailing list as one of the interfaces, you're going to find a fair bit of
opposition to that.

- Jonathan M Davis