Can we just have struct inheritence already?

[XavierAP]

On Thursday, 13 June 2019 at 22:13:51 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
> So don't implicitly convert to the base type?
> B extends A, but I don't think it's a kind of A as for 
> polymorphic classes.

What is the benefit of

	struct A { void fun(); };
	struct B :A {};

	B b;
	b.fun;

compared to

	struct A {};
	struct B { A a; };

	B b;
	b.a.fun;

Less typing is good but stuff happening magically/unexpectedly 
for a neutral reader of the code (e.g. implicit casts) is not. 
And if on the other hand, !is(B:A), then what is the advantage, 
and the use case?

Your OP pattern may have good alternatives that don't repeat code 
either, but produce more explicitly readable code?