Library Typedefs are fundamentally broken

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 20 September 2014 at 15:26:37 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:
>> But Typedef is not some generic symbol. It is library type 
>> specifically
>> introduced as `typedef` keyword replacement and advertised as 
>> such. I
>> expect it to work as close to `typedef` as possible being the 
>> most
>> priority. Otherwise it is simply useless.
>
> No. -- Andrei

I don't really care what you think. There is a simple fact - 
there is not a single use case I am going to use existing 
implementation instead of rolling one of my own. Call me a 
pervert but when standard library type can't be used for 
something it was initially proposed for it does smell like a 
failure.