Can we just have struct inheritence already?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Thursday, June 13, 2019 4:27:46 PM MDT Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 7:35 AM Nemanja Boric via Digitalmars-d
>
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 13 June 2019 at 13:32:05 UTC, Joseph Rushton
> >
> > Wakeling wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 13 June 2019 at 08:24:38 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >> No: the spec disagrees with the implementation, therefore at
> > >> least one of them is wrong. It does not immediately follow
> > >> that it is the spec that is in error.
> > >
> > > It's reasonable to say in this case that the spec is in error,
> > > because Walter has always been 100% clear that @safe refers
> > > only to memory safety, and the implementation reflects that
> > > intent.
> >
> > Not really:
> >
> > https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19326
> >
> > > tupleof is known to break through private access protections.
> > > It should probably not be allowed in @safe code.
>
> Wait... what?
> "tupleof is known to break through private access protections. It
> should probably not be allowed in @safe code." - Walter Bright
>
> Breaking private access is not in any way shape or form a memory
> safety violation.

Agreed. It might make it possible to then screw up the memory in an object,
but that code would then have to be @trusted. And if it didn't actually
doing anything that could screw with the memory of the object, then
requiring that it be @trusted makes no sense.

- Jonathan M Davis