Constructor inheritance? Why not?

[Shachar Shemesh via Digitalmars-d]

On 08/06/15 06:35, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> They're not polymorphic, and it doesn't make sense to call a base class
> constructor on a derived class. I think that I heard somewhere that
> C++11 added some sort of constructor inheritance
No, it didn't.

What C++11 added was the ability to use the implementation of one 
constructor from another (something D already has), and to use the 
parent's constructor definitions without redefining them when you have 
several.

None of those comes under the umbrella of "constructor inheritance", for 
much the same reasons you already pointed out.

Shachar