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
Hello Walter,
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 anyo
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 f
Justin Johansson 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 s
rmcguire Wrote:
> Justin Johansson 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
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.
D
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:45:26 +0100, BCS wrote:
Hello Walter,
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 s
rmcguire wrote:
Justin Johansson 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
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.
D
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.
D
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Walter's and my interim conclusion last night was that fixing typedef would
> be difficult, and that the usefulness of typedef is too little for its
> complexity. It may be a good idea to just remove it from the language. We
> already
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 9:04 AM, grauzone 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.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:54:27AM -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> The last point was revealed by a conversation between Walter and me last
> night. I pointed out that typedef should create a *subtype* of a type, e.g.:
I was thinking about this a while ago and had a half baked proposal, but
d
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 9:04 AM, grauzone 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 g
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
* typedef is hopelessly broken in very many ways
* nobody noticed (i.e. no bugzilla reports), so probably nobody uses it
No Bugzilla reports? Here're just a few:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=632
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1335
htt
== Quote from grauzone (n...@example.net)'s article
> 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 ide
Hello Simen,
[...] suggest that
typedef int foo;
be kept as it is, and
typedef int bar {
/* stuffs */
}
be sugar for
struct bar {
int _payload;
alias _payload this;
/* stuffs */
}
One important aspect of what I proposed is that operators that aren't overridden
still exist and use the same
Matti Niemenmaa wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
* typedef is hopelessly broken in very many ways
* nobody noticed (i.e. no bugzilla reports), so probably nobody uses it
No Bugzilla reports? Here're just a few:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=632
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/
Andrei Alexandrescu:
> Walter's and my interim conclusion last night was that fixing typedef
> would be difficult, and that the usefulness of typedef is too little for
> its complexity. It may be a good idea to just remove it from the
> language.
An usage of typedef:
alias int[5][20] TyMat;
ty
bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Walter's and my interim conclusion last night was that fixing typedef
would be difficult, and that the usefulness of typedef is too little for
its complexity. It may be a good idea to just remove it from the
language.
An usage of typedef:
alias int[5][
bearophile wrote:
If typedef gets removed from D, will the "typedef" keyword removed from the D
language?
Eventually, yes, though there will be much time when it exists as a
"deprecated" feature.
BCS wrote:
Hello Simen,
[...] suggest that
typedef int foo;
be kept as it is, and
typedef int bar {
/* stuffs */
}
be sugar for
struct bar {
int _payload;
alias _payload this;
/* stuffs */
}
One important aspect of what I proposed is that operators that aren't
overridden still exist a
Hello Simen,
BCS wrote:
One important aspect of what I proposed is that operators that aren't
overridden still exist and use the same codegen as the base type (or
are guarantied to generate the same machine code in all cases).
struct foo {
float f;
alias f this;
}
void main( ) {
foo f;
f =
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
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> rmcguire wrote:
>> Justin Johansson 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 m
25 matches
Mail list logo
