Why typedef's shouldn't have been removed :(

[Mehrdad]

On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 12:18:36 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> No, they are the same function.  size_t is aliased to uint.  
> What *you* want size_t to mean is not what it is, it's an alias 
> to the word-sized unsigned integer on a platform.  Get used to 
> it, use another type if you don't want it to be that.

No kidding! I use a different language altogether when I don't 
like D.
That doesn't tell me anything useful though...

> It's the same in C/C++ BTW.  D's alias === C's typedef, and C's 
> size_t is a typedef.

Did you read my own response to someone else? You're telling me 
something I already mentioned myself...
My response: "C++ doesn't even _have_ reflection, and it treats 
typedefs pretty
much the same as D does right now..."

>> (2) I'm saying function(void*) and function(HANDLE) are 
>> different functions, and people are telling me to use TypeDef. 
>> Which is of course an alternative, except that it requires me 
>> to modify the source code of my library.
>
> Wait, you have to modify one type definition, right?  Is that 
> really not satisfactory?  I don't understand this line of 
> reasoning.

No, it's not satisfactory, because I'm not always in control of 
the type definition.


> I can't say I ever used typedef when it was allowed.

That doesn't make it useless. :P

> I can see how it can be useful in certain situations, but I 
> think the path is available to make an equivalent library 
> solution work (it seems several people have said it doesn't, 
> why not spend time trying to fix it rather than complaining 
> about features that aren't coming back?)

Um... if people don't agree that size_t should be a different 
type, why would I spend time 'fixing' something that won't be 
used anyway?


>> (I'm pretty sure none of the people who suggested using 
>> TypeDef for HWND realized that we'd have to do the same thing 
>> for size_t and such. Otherwise, when I'd have asked about 
>> that, the response wouldn't have been "who cares".)
>
> I think they didn't realize it because it's completely false ;)
>  You saying it's not false doesn't make it any more true.

It might have been false, but if so, that falsehood definitely 
wasn't communicated. So from my perspective, it's true. (I don't 
have ESP to figure out what people *really* think of, sorry... 
and no pun intended :P)