need clarification: will typedef, C struct initialization, etc.

[Justin Spahr-Summers]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 06:05:50 +0800, Lionello Lunesu 
<lio at lunesu.remove.com> wrote:
> 
> On 1-6-2010 5:38, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > On 05/31/2010 03:54 PM, bearophile wrote:
> >> Andrei Alexandrescu:
> >>> typedef is gone.
> >>
> >> *mewls* I have shown here some examples of typedef usage, and I'll
> >> keep posting few more in future. I'd like to pull it back from the
> >> grave and keep it :-)
> > 
> > It's wasted time. typedef is gone.
> > 
> > Andrei
> 
> :((
> 
> I also miss typedef. I thought D had a great opportunity to fix it.
> 
> Take something like the Windows headers. It mostly consists of typedefs
> for handles and whatnot. Without typedef you'd have to use alias and
> type safety is out of the windows.
> 
> So what would be the way to translate those Windows headers? Create a
> unique struct for each old typedef? With alias this, and a ctor? Well,
> if that's the way to do it now, why not make typedef a shortcut for
> exactly that!?

I'm a fan of typedef, personally, but the example you mentioned *would* 
be solved using just an alias. 'alias' provides the same functionality 
as C/C++'s 'typedef' and more.