On Thursday, 10 October 2013 at 02:19:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> @system code could, but it'd be extremely uneasy doing such
calls unless I am the one in charge of that code and can make
sure the base function will never store the (unretained)
pointer somewhere it shouldn't now and in the future. An
misstep here and you get memory corruption. Seriously, I don't
think @system code should allow implicit conversions to the
base class, it should be explicit.
It's a worthy point.
It means OOP is completely broken with that design.
