On 9/20/14, 1:52 PM, bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Have you used it in your real D code three or more times?
No, but that doesn't mean much.
It means that I have more experience than you in using Typedef, and in
my experience their usage is not so good.
Aye. What I meant was "it doesn't mean Typedef is unusable; I just
didn't need for that particular facility".
What I'm saying after skimming
https://issues.dlang.org/buglist.cgi?f1=short_desc&list_id=106755&o1=casesubstring&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&v1=Typedef
is that all or at least most issues are trivial to fix.
My perception of this thread is that there's an abundance of that
misleading vividness fallacy
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_vividness). Rhetoric techniques
blow the most trivial matters out of proportion and build to the foaming
co(ncl|f)usion that "less convenient than a baked-in facility" really
means "unusable". I don't care for that kind of argument.
Fix that stuff, go your merry way and use Typedef.
Andrei
