Can we just have struct inheritence already?

[Manu]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:25 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/11/2019 11:19 AM, Manu wrote:
> >> Can I ask again, in a different way, why do you need the 0 size?
> >
> > To handle base structs with no members.
>
> For the 3rd time, why do you need it to have 0 size? I don't know what you mean
> by "handling" it.

I hate wasting 8 bytes needlessly. Almost every struct I write is
carefully packed and aligned to 16, 32, or 64 bytes and allocated in
pools... that's 50%, 25%, or 12.5% memory wastage.
There's also ABI compatibility with existing C++ where this is
super-common. Consider that user-supplied <Allocator> is a base of
every STL container, that's one case where I've had to deploy the
static if hack a lot. Those are absolutely not polymorphic types, and
you couldn't make that mistake no matter how hard you squinted. They
sometimes use a helper called a 'packed pair' in the STL, which is
like std::pair (obviously another not-a-polymorphic-type), but where
one or the other element can be zero-sized and not waste memory.
It's an aggregation tool.