division of objects into classes and structures is bad

[Christopher Wright]

Weed wrote:
> Who agrees with me? There are still ideas as it is possible to solve
> this problem and not to destroy language?

When you reply to your reply to your reply to your post and nobody else 
replies to any of your posts, you might start thinking that nobody 
agrees with you, or cares enough to respond.

As to your suggestion that there be compile-time checks for object 
slicing... well, you'd end up with almost everything with any 
polymorphism being done by reference for safety. In the remaining 
situations, scope will usually suffice.

I don't think anyone sees sufficient reason to give Walter as much work 
as you suggest. When would you use this?
  - In place of the current scope keyword.
  - For more efficiency with object composition (though scope could be 
used for this, potentially).
  - Implementing value semantics with runtime polymorphism.

The only interesting thing there is value semantics with polymorphism. 
If you really care, you can implement polymorphism with structs.