My perception following the discussion around typedef is that we should
eliminate it. What we offer is "alias", which is a generalization of C's
"typedef", and the change of name is justified by the fact that "alias"
defines aliases for more entities than just types.
Does all that sound good?
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:37:07 -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
>My perception following the discussion around typedef is that we should
>eliminate it. What we offer is "alias", which is a generalization of C's
>"typedef", and the change of name is justified by the fact that "alias"
>defines al
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> My perception following the discussion around typedef is that we should
> eliminate it. What we offer is "alias", which is a generalization of C's
> "typedef", and the change of name is justified by the fact that "alias"
> defines aliases for more entities than just
On 12/11/2009 16:37, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
My perception following the discussion around typedef is that we should
eliminate it. What we offer is "alias", which is a generalization of C's
"typedef", and the change of name is justified by the fact that "alias"
defines aliases for more entitie
Sean Kelly wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
My perception following the discussion around typedef is that we
should eliminate it. What we offer is "alias", which is a
generalization of C's "typedef", and the change of name is
justified by the fact that "alias" defines aliases for more
entities
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> My perception following the discussion around typedef is that we should
> eliminate it. What we offer is "alias", which is a generalization of C's
> "typedef", and the change of name is justified by the fact that "alias"
> defines aliases for more entities than just
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
> > Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> >
> >> My perception following the discussion around typedef is that we
> >> should eliminate it. What we offer is "alias", which is a
> >> generalization of C's "typedef", and the change of name is
> >> justified by
Justin Johansson wrote:
I remember the discussion ... and if two intelligent folks in language
design can't agree on "inheritance direction" ... and given the paucity of benefits ...
there is only one reasonable promise to fulfill ...
D. typedef
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:37:07 -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> My perception following the discussion around typedef is that we should
> eliminate it. What we offer is "alias", which is a generalization of C's
> "typedef", and the change of name is justified by the fact that "alias"
> defines al
Moritz Warning wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:37:07 -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
My perception following the discussion around typedef is that we should
eliminate it. What we offer is "alias", which is a generalization of C's
"typedef", and the change of name is justified by the fact that "
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:07:24 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> Justin Johansson wrote:
>> I remember the discussion ... and if two intelligent folks in language
>> design can't agree on "inheritance direction" ... and given the paucity
>> of benefits ... there is only one reasonable promise to fulfill
Walter Bright wrote:
Justin Johansson wrote:
I remember the discussion ... and if two intelligent folks in language
design can't agree on "inheritance direction" ... and given the
paucity of benefits ... there is only one reasonable promise to
fulfill ...
D. t
12 matches
Mail list logo