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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to