Property discussion wrap-up

[Zach the Mystic]

On Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 05:20:51 UTC, Zach the Mystic 
wrote:
> You know, I was too dumb to even understand what you wrote when 
> I read it the first time. I was just naively assuming that 
> nested structs were like nested functions. Some rules 
> definitely need to be figured out here. I don't see why the 
> basic functionality which is provided for nested functions 
> couldn't work also for nested structs. Does "static struct" 
> mean anything here? Couldn't it be used exactly like static 
> nested functions? Would it break code if we now forced people 
> to say "static struct" instead of just struct?
>
> I'm sorry for missing your point. I'm trying to suggest 
> advanced language features without even knowing some of the 
> basics. I ask you to bear with me.

Wait, hold on there! This says otherwise: 
http://dlang.org/struct.html

So what's up? Who's wrong!?