Hi all. I have small suggestion. It would be nice if I'll able do following thing:

struct MyStruct
{
	int a, b, c;
	float x, y, z;
}

struct AnotherStruct
{
	mixin MyStruct;
	real p, q, r;
}

I.e. in cases when a struct name is an argument for a mixin treat it as template with no parameters. This will give some resemblance of struct inheritance and some few another benefits.
What do you think?

"Victor Nakoryakov" <nail-mail@mail.ru> wrote in message news:d8m359$ivq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I.e. in cases when a struct name is an argument for a mixin treat it as
> template with no parameters. This will give some resemblance of struct
> inheritance and some few another benefits.
> What do you think?

Seems like kind of a niche feature (that is, a feature without much use). We can already do:

template MyStruct_Members()
{
 int x;
 float y;
}

struct MyStruct
{
 mixin MyStruct_Members;
}

struct MyStructInherited
{
 mixin MyStruct_Members;
 char[] z;
}

It's not that much more work to just make a new template.

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Victor Nakoryakov" <nail-mail@mail.ru> wrote in message news:d8m359$ivq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>I.e. in cases when a struct name is an argument for a mixin treat it as template with no parameters. This will give some resemblance of struct inheritance and some few another benefits.
>>What do you think?
> 
> 
> Seems like kind of a niche feature (that is, a feature without much use). We can already do:
> 
> template MyStruct_Members()
> {
>  int x;
>  float y;
> }
> 
> struct MyStruct
> {
>  mixin MyStruct_Members;
> }
> 
> struct MyStructInherited
> {
>  mixin MyStruct_Members;
>  char[] z;
> }
> 
> It's not that much more work to just make a new template. 
> 
> 

Theoretically this is true. But in the reality when this isn't single instance, structs are longer then 3 lines code became less and less readable. This is elegant and simple to implement (I think) feature. Why not?!

-- 
Victor Nakoryakov
nail-mail<at>mail<dot>ru

Krasnoznamensk, Moscow, Russia

"Victor Nakoryakov" <nail-mail@mail.ru> wrote in message news:d8ouib$30ii$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Theoretically this is true. But in the reality when this isn't single instance, structs are longer then 3 lines code became less and less readable. This is elegant and simple to implement (I think) feature. Why not?!

Well, in that case, you might as well just ask for struct inheritance.  It'd make things easier on the programmer, especially for casting.

I'd love to see struct inheritance.

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Victor Nakoryakov" <nail-mail@mail.ru> wrote in message news:d8ouib$30ii$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>Theoretically this is true. But in the reality when this isn't single instance, structs are longer then 3 lines code became less and less readable. This is elegant and simple to implement (I think) feature. Why not?!
> 
> 
> Well, in that case, you might as well just ask for struct inheritance.  It'd make things easier on the programmer, especially for casting.
> 
> I'd love to see struct inheritance. 
> 
> 

Inheritance is too complex solution for D structs which are some kind of scalar in D paradigm. This will raise problem with vtbls etc, etc and structs will become classes just with another keyword to declare it like in C++.
Mixining on the other hand has not such problems and gives ability to emulate multiple inheritance.

-- 
Victor Nakoryakov
nail-mail<at>mail<dot>ru

Krasnoznamensk, Moscow, Russia

Victor Nakoryakov wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> 
>> "Victor Nakoryakov" <nail-mail@mail.ru> wrote in message news:d8ouib$30ii$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>> Theoretically this is true. But in the reality when this isn't single instance, structs are longer then 3 lines code became less and less readable. This is elegant and simple to implement (I think) feature. Why not?!
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, in that case, you might as well just ask for struct inheritance.  It'd make things easier on the programmer, especially for casting.
>>
>> I'd love to see struct inheritance.
>>
> 
> Inheritance is too complex solution for D structs which are some kind of scalar in D paradigm. This will raise problem with vtbls etc, etc and structs will become classes just with another keyword to declare it like in C++.
> Mixining on the other hand has not such problems and gives ability to emulate multiple inheritance.
> 
Single inheritance it's very simple solution. And there is no need for vtbl to implement it. Inherited structure is always binary compatible with base struct it's only extending it by new fields and/or non virtual methods. Or may be You mean inheriting structures from interfaces?