Can we just have struct inheritence already?

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Sunday, 9 June 2019 at 22:03:02 UTC, Manu wrote:
> to inhibit the worst of them, but the current restriction is 
> anti-productive, the line in the sand is drawn incorrectly.

Well, you are arguing in favour of something that I have argued 
for in the past as well, so I am inclined to agree with you :-).

On the positive side, other features that I've argued for in the 
past seems to be implemented now… so who knows.

Anyway, designers are not inclined to change their mind easily. 
So the best thing you can do is to put the arguments on the table 
and make a good case for it. After a while people will 
internalize your arguments as long as they are listening.

Then wait a few years, then they forget where the arguments came 
from and perceive it as their own.

So, as long people listen to your arguments, then changes might 
come… with patience.

I like some of the new directions that I see, but I am not that 
patient…

I think there would be more progress if D focused on bringing the 
language to embedded programming, instead of having such a wide 
range of concerns (e.g. scripting language like abilities).

> For contrast, I've been arguing on bug reports recently that 
> people
> think interactions with uninitialised unions (or =void 
> initialised
> code) is @safe... 🤯🤯🤯
> which just shows how astonishingly arbitrary this shit is.

I don't think @safe is possible with this approach, and frankly, 
it doesn't really matter all that much. What matters is that the 
design is such that the programmer groks that a piece of code is 
potentially unsafe. I consider C-style unions to be a low level 
feature…