Can we just have struct inheritence already?

[Exil]

On Friday, 14 June 2019 at 01:12:21 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 14.06.19 02:23, Exil wrote:
>> On Thursday, 13 June 2019 at 21:26:37 UTC, Tim wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 13 June 2019 at 20:55:34 UTC, Exil wrote:
>>>> This problem happens because you are used @trusted. If you 
>>>> used @safe you wouldn't be able to increment pointers and 
>>>> modify the values the way you did in @trusted.
>>>
>>> Here is a completly @safe version:
>>>
>>> import std.stdio;
>>>
>>> static int[2] data;
>>> static int[253] data2;
>>>
>>> void test(bool b) @safe
>>> {
>>>     data[b]++;
>>> }
>>>
>>> void main() @safe
>>> {
>>>     bool b = void;
>>>     writeln(data, data2);
>>>     test(b);
>>>     writeln(data, data2);
>>> }
>>>
>>> If b is valid only data can change. But for me data2 changes, 
>>> even though it is never written to.
>> 
>> This is a bug.
>
> Yes. And the bug is either
> - that `void` initialization of `bool` is `@safe`.
> - that `void` initialization of `bool` can produce a value that 
> is both `true` and `false`.
> - that boolean values are assumed to be either `true` or 
> `false` in @safe code.
>
> Which one seems most plausible to you?

None of them. Code generation is incorrect for boolean values.

>> It seems it doesn't do bounds checking for the index because 
>> it is a bool value and it is less than the static type. If you 
>> change the array to a dynamically allocated one, an assert is 
>> hit as expected.
>
> That's not expected, this is just the compiler not being as 
> smart as it could be given the available information.

A value is used that is out of bounds of the array, yes that 
assert is expected.