On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 21:22:30 +0000 ponce via Digitalmars-d-announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 January 2015 at 20:23:11 UTC, ketmar via > Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > > i'm not sure, but maybe it worth renaming "struct inheritance" > > to > > "extending a struct"? or even something completely different. > > what it > > does is actually extending/augmenting the struct, but not > > OO-inheritance, as one cannot pass "augmented" struct to the > > function > > which expects original struct. at least without hackery. > > Renamed, thanks! we actually can pass "extended" struct as original one, as Artur shown, but i believe that "extending" is still better. p.s. you forgot to fix TOC, which still reads "struct inheritance".
Description: PGP signature