On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 21:22:30 +0000 ponce via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> 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! p.p.s. maybe it's worth adding Artur's code sample[1] too, to show that "extended" structure can be passed to functions which requires original one? it's not obvious, at least for me. ;-) [1] http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.4332.1420752329.9932.digitalmars-d-annou...@puremagic.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature