On Thursday 17 March 2011 22:12:17 Don wrote: > Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > > On 3/17/11 11:21 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: > >> On 3/17/11, Nick Sabalausky<a@a.a> wrote: > >>> I've long been convinced that "alias old new;" should really be > >>> "alias new = > >>> old;" The current way confuses me, and I *still* have to consciously > >>> stop > >>> and think about it every time I write an alias statement (including > >>> just now). > >> > >> I thought I was the only one. The `alias symbol this` in structs in > >> particular always stops me and I have to think about what it means, > >> even though it might be obvious. > > > > I'm with y'all too. Even Walter needs to stop and think for a second. > > We're considering enabling > > > > alias a = b; > > > > as an equivalent for > > > > alias b a; > > > > > > Andrei > > That would be great!
Yes. That change would make alias much more pleasant to deal with. It's not all that big a deal with how it is, but I usually screw it up, just like I usually screw up typedefs in C++. It's just not obvious which way it goes. - Jonathan M Davis