<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">I thought the problem with struct polymorphism (specifically the stack size issue) *was* the fundamental reason we can’t have “substructs”.<br class=""></blockquote>As I said:<div class="">I guess this is the reason we <i class="">don't</i> have "substructs" now — but inheritance can be useful without polymorphism:</div><div class="">Imagine an application that managers data of customers and employees.</div><div class="">It would be reasonable to model those data-containers as structs, and as both structs share many properties, a "person"-type would be quite convenient, even if it is not possible to create collections which contain customers as well as employees*.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Tino</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">* yes, an embedded "address"-struct would be an alternative — but copy & paste or writing everything in assembler is an alternative as well ;-)</div></body></html>