On Sunday, 21 September 2014 at 17:47:57 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
Am Sun, 21 Sep 2014 08:04:39 -0700
schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org>:
Why would anyone hope a valid idiom were not mentioned?
It's just what people do when an argument would be
detrimental to their own position in an argument. :p
Look, I don't feel strongly about it. Just, from an objective
point of view, aliases and templates in their current form are
no good candidates to implement strongly typed typedefs. The
semantics are too different. A proxy struct for example
does more cleanly define a new symbol and type with normal
lookup rules. But let's not waste our energy on this now.
It is after all a convenience feature, not an enabler like
shared libraries, ARC or standard logging facilities.
I agree that it is not _that_ important but it feels really bad
to have to reimplement parts of standard library to get semantics
at least somewhat close to promised/expected.
Pretty much only effective difference it makes is that write now
I have a custom Typedef wrapper as part of D1->D2 migration
helpers and initially hoped for forwarding it to
std.typecons.Typedef once migration is over. But considering
Andrei strong position on topic it will stay as in-house mixin
based solution, not a big deal.
I am just surprised Andrei insists so hard on defending solution
that is questionable at best.
