Can we just have struct inheritence already?

[Timon Gehr]

On 13.06.19 23:49, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/13/2019 1:25 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 13.06.19 09:27, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> The spec's wrong, because it doesn't do that.
>>
>> Memory safety implies no undefined behavior. The only way the spec can 
>> be wrong [1] is if you say that corrupting memory has defined behavior 
>> in D, in which case the spec would be too weak, and not too strong 
>> like you are implying. Otherwise, "memory safe" and "no undefined 
>> behavior" are equivalent.
> 
> I've already agreed that an uninitialized int should have an undefined 
> value, not undefined behavior :-)
> ...

To me it looked like you first (02:37) agreed that the spec is fine, but 
then later (09:27) asserted that the spec is wrong. This might just be a 
case of Walter time travel though.

> The spec does indeed lack precision with these terms, and it's something 
> well worth addressing.
> 
> 
>> [1] Assuming here that we accept that @safe successfully protects 
>> against memory corruption, ignoring assumptions that need to be made 
>> on @trusted functions.
> 
> The spec should be clear that @trusted functions must present an @safe 
> interface.

I was just covering my bases. :)