Property discussion wrap-up

[Zach the Mystic]

On Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 21:41:58 UTC, Zach the Mystic 
wrote:
> But what if B actually had some data? The only solution is to 
> have one pointer for every struct it's nested inside of. I can 
> imagine it getting tricky in this case. If it were so tricky as 
> to be prohibitive to implement, then all is not lost. You can 
> still implement zero-data structs as properties. In that case, 
> I suggest weaving the implementation in directly with the 
> Highlanders, because Highlanders will be much less appealing 
> for any other use.

I should correct myself, I think. You need one pointer for every 
struct nested which actually holds data.

And I take back the connection between Highlanders and zero-data 
structs. The other possible use for Highlanders which I was 
thinking of is for quick prototyping, since "foo struct {}" is 
much easier to type than "struct Foo {}; Foo foo;". I see no real 
problem with these even if non-static, non-zero-data nested 
structs are not allowed access to their parent structs.