typedef: what's it good for?

[Justin Johansson]

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?

Early on (2 months ago) when I was just getting into D I asked about typedefs on this forum
and some discussion transpired.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Is_typedef_an_alien_96658.html#N96658

(btw. There are a few responses from blasts from recent pasts in that thread.)

Anyway, grepping for typedef over my current "scripting-language in D" project source
shows only old versions of my project using typedefs.  Accordingly it looks like I have
since managed to convert *all* of my previous typedef incarnations to structs so as to
take advantage of struct's support for static opCall so as to synthesize "constructors"
(as well enabling use of struct methods).

Maybe I didn't know enough about D back then, but the big problem with D typedefs
(for me at least) was there was no support for typedef constructors and code otherwise
blotted with cast-to-typedef-type is yuk in my way of thinking.

I think there are only two sensible courses of action for D:  support typedef constructors 
(and methods???) or remove 'em.  I'm not sure which option I prefer (is the first even 
an option?)

Cheers
Justin Johansson