On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Aenigmatic <proc...@adam-dott-com.au> wrote: > No further response to any responses to my previous post's responses is a > both swift and non-invasive. > > Now my deeply thought question is ... > > Is typedef (in D) a C/C++ legacy or is the dear orphan now adopted as a > first-class citizen in the US of D?
It's a different beast, and in my experience, pretty useless. Most of the time you want typedef'ed types to interact with other types a little more richly. Say you want to use a double as a time. Okay, what do you get when you subtract two points in time? Not a time, that's for sure. You get a time _span_ instead. So you end up implementing them as structs. Virtually every time I've tried to use typedef, it hasn't sufficed and I've ended up using a struct instead. It seems like a failed idea, or at the very least, yet another half-thought-out abandoned feature.
