Shouldn't c_long and c_ulong be library typedefs?

[Mehrdad]

On Wednesday, 5 September 2012 at 23:51:41 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic 
wrote:
> I'm interfacing with C++ and found a little overload problem:
>
> C++:
> void test(unsigned int x)  { }
> void test(unsigned long x) { }
>
> int main()
> {
>     unsigned int x;
>     unsigned long y;
>     test(x);
>     test(y);
>     return 0;
> }
>
> No problem, but in D:
>
> import core.stdc.config;
> void test(uint x)  { }
> void test(c_ulong x) { }
>
> void main()
> {
>     uint x;
>     c_ulong y;
>     test(x);
>     test(y);
> }
>
> test.d(12): Error: function test.test called with argument 
> types:
> 	((uint))
> matches both:
> 	test.test(uint x)
> and:
> 	test.test(uint x)
>
> c_ulong is an alias to either uint or ulong based on the 
> architecture.
> But it is an *alias*, meaning you can't overload it like the 
> above
> based on the architecture. This leads to cases where compiling 
> on one
> architecture works (x64 -> c_ulong is D ulong, overloads with 
> uint)
> but on another one it doesn't (x32 -> c_ulong is D uint, can't
> overload with uint).
>
> Anyway I've two questions:
> 1) Has anyone come up with a library solution for a typedef 
> because I
> need it for cases like these, and
> 2) Will c_long/c_ulong be converted to a library typedef or 
> will they
> remain aliases?



I was complaining about something similar way back when (I was 
saying size_t should not be the same data type as uint) but the 
idea got thrown in the trash.