typedef: what's it good for?

[rmcguire]

Justin Johansson <no at spam.com> 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 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
> 
> 

I like typedef for making header files for c libraries.
For example, so that you can't just pass an int to a function expecting 
an id.