Charles Hixson wrote:
A) Yes, it works the way that you say. This damages it's utility.B) I'm replying to a question as to how typedef could reasonably be extended.
The point of a typedef is to provide additional type safety. This would not exist if you could implicitly cast back and forth. Unless you want an implicit cast from a typedef type to the base type, and not the reverse -- that might be reasonable (I can't immediately see any issues with it).
