Re: Why can't structs be derived from?

[KennyTM~]

On Mar 16, 11 23:01, Ary Manzana wrote:

On 3/15/11 3:29 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

On 3/15/11 12:55 PM, Jens wrote:

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

That's all there is. Structs do not have inheritance, only alias
this.

Why don't they though? Inheritance does not have to mean polymorphic. It
can mean composition, like in C++. I don't understand the reason for
such
ugly syntax.

Using inheritance for composition is frowned upon in C++ for good
reasons. If you want composition, the best is to use composition.

The reason for the allegedly ugly syntax is that it's considerably more
general. It is often the case that a struct defines an entity that is
implicitly convertible to another entity - could be an rvalue vs.
lvalue, a class vs. another struct vs. a primitive type, could need a
run-time operation etc. Inheritance would offer at best few of these
amenities, whereas 'alias this' offers all with a simple syntax.


Andrei

Syntax matters. A lot. Which one is more readable/understandable?

struct Point2 {
int x;
int y;
}

1.

struct Point3 {
Point2 point2;
alias this point2;

Should be "alias point2 this;"

(strengthening the argument that this syntax is not good?)

int z;
}

2.

struct Point3 : Point2 {
int z;
}

You can't deny this last one is much more easier to understand and it
exactly does what your mind want to do: just give me what's in the other
struct and let me add more things.

The compiler can implement this using alias this and making the aliased
member private, and possibly disallowing adding another alias this.