Bill Baxter wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 9:04 AM, grauzone <n...@example.net> 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?
One _actual_ use of typeof is to force a different array initializer (for
performance reasons):
typedef int Foo = 1;
Foo[] arr;
arr.length = 567;
//with int[] arr, you now had to do arr[] = 1;
Also, you can easily define new exception classes:
//no need to write a ctor which just calls the super ctor
typedef Exception MyException;
Does this actually work now? Long ago this was one of the things I
first thought I could use typedefs for, but it didn't work. I think
it was because the compiler no longer recognizes MyException as a
subtype of Exception anymore, but it was a long time ago, so I don't
recall for sure.
I think it does. There was a bug that prevented this from working, but
it was fixed:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1285
Anyway, D should do something about those annoying ctors semantics. I
propose we use exactly the same model as Object Pascal / Delphi did.
--bb
