Can we just have struct inheritence already?

[Manu]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:20 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/12/2019 11:29 PM, Manu wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:25 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
> > <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 6/11/2019 11:19 AM, Manu wrote:
> >>>> Can I ask again, in a different way, why do you need the 0 size?
> >>>
> >>> To handle base structs with no members.
> >>
> >> For the 3rd time, why do you need it to have 0 size? I don't know what you mean
> >> by "handling" it.
> >
> > I hate wasting 8 bytes needlessly. Almost every struct I write is
> > carefully packed and aligned to 16, 32, or 64 bytes and allocated in
> > pools... that's 50%, 25%, or 12.5% memory wastage.
> > There's also ABI compatibility with existing C++ where this is
> > super-common. Consider that user-supplied <Allocator> is a base of
> > every STL container, that's one case where I've had to deploy the
> > static if hack a lot. Those are absolutely not polymorphic types, and
> > you couldn't make that mistake no matter how hard you squinted. They
> > sometimes use a helper called a 'packed pair' in the STL, which is
> > like std::pair (obviously another not-a-polymorphic-type), but where
> > one or the other element can be zero-sized and not waste memory.
> > It's an aggregation tool.
> >
>
> Have you considered using template mixins? Since you're using a base struct
> merely as a namespace for some functions, that should work.

I mean, I love macro's as much as the next guy, and they're not at all
embarrassing.