Daveed Vandevoorde wrote:
> Note that “a base class” in C++ is not the same as “the type of a base class”. A
> base class is closer to “a data member”: It describes a subobject designation.

This reminds me of an observation I had: it would have been nice if we could
actually form pointer to member to a specific base class, so that we can then
reflect it. Because as-is, if you have two bases of the same type, there's no way
you can differentiate between them just by their type.