On 9/22/14, 11:52 AM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
seems that Andrei talking about 'idiomatic D' and we are talking about 'hacky typedef replacement'. that's why we can't settle the issue: we are both right! ;-)
That I'd agree with.
and that's why we need 'typedef' revived, methinks.
Sorry, no. Andrei
