rmcguire wrote:
Justin Johansson <n...@spam.com> wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
When I originally worked out ideas for D, there were many requests from
the C and C++ community for a 'strong' typedef, and so I put one in D. I
didn't think about it too much, just assumed that it was a good idea.
Now I'm not so sure. Maybe it should be removed for D2.
Does anyone use typedef's?
What do you use them for?
Do you need them?
Early on (2 months ago) when I was just getting into D I asked about typedefs
on this forum
and some discussion transpired.
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/
Is_typedef_an_alien_96658.html#N96658
(btw. There are a few responses from blasts from recent pasts in that thread.)
Anyway, grepping for typedef over my current "scripting-language in D" project
source
shows only old versions of my project using typedefs. Accordingly it looks
like I have
since managed to convert *all* of my previous typedef incarnations to structs
so as to
take advantage of struct's support for static opCall so as to synthesize
"constructors"
(as well enabling use of struct methods).
Maybe I didn't know enough about D back then, but the big problem with D
typedefs
(for me at least) was there was no support for typedef constructors and code
otherwise
blotted with cast-to-typedef-type is yuk in my way of thinking.
I think there are only two sensible courses of action for D: support typedef
constructors
(and methods???) or remove 'em. I'm not sure which option I prefer (is the
first even
an option?)
Cheers
Justin Johansson
I like typedef for making header files for c libraries.
For example, so that you can't just pass an int to a function expecting
an id.
Today's typedef allows you to pass an arbitrary int literal as a typedef.
typedef int ID;
void fun(ID);
fun(42); // compiles and runs
Andrei
