On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:58:52 -0400, Mehrdad <wfunct...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You're missing the problem:
(1) I'm saying function(size_t) and function(uint) are different
functions, and people are telling me that's silly, who cares about the
type anyway. That's not an 'alternative'.
No, they are the same function. size_t is aliased to uint. What *you*
want size_t to mean is not what it is, it's an alias to the word-sized
unsigned integer on a platform. Get used to it, use another type if you
don't want it to be that.
It's the same in C/C++ BTW. D's alias === C's typedef, and C's size_t is
a typedef.
(2) I'm saying function(void*) and function(HANDLE) are different
functions, and people are telling me to use TypeDef. Which is of course
an alternative, except that it requires me to modify the source code of
my library.
Wait, you have to modify one type definition, right? Is that really not
satisfactory? I don't understand this line of reasoning.
I would be more inclined to agree with those reasons (1) and (2) were
the same reason, but they aren't!
So what that tells me is that people are just giving random reasons for
not adding back typedef, without actually thinking about the
implications.
I can't say I ever used typedef when it was allowed. I can see how it can
be useful in certain situations, but I think the path is available to make
an equivalent library solution work (it seems several people have said it
doesn't, why not spend time trying to fix it rather than complaining about
features that aren't coming back?)
(I'm pretty sure none of the people who suggested using TypeDef for HWND
realized that we'd have to do the same thing for size_t and such.
Otherwise, when I'd have asked about that, the response wouldn't have
been "who cares".)
I think they didn't realize it because it's completely false ;) You
saying it's not false doesn't make it any more true.
-Steve
