Probably trivial, but VERY frustrating compiler bug

[Adam D. Ruppe]

On Friday, 14 August 2020 at 12:47:01 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> As of now, there are three ways the compiler can give you names 
> of a type:

I actually personally use .mangleof when it doesn't have to be 
user visible... and if it does, I'll just demangle parts of it 
(the first part for the name is very simple, it is 
decimal-length-prefixed strings, then you join them back with dot 
and you're done, it is the type info at the end of the string 
that gets complicated to demangle).

It is pretty well defined and has certain guarantees for linking.

> It would be awesome if all of these were consistent and 
> well-defined.

That said, I'd probably be ok with improving the definitions! I'd 
still tell people to never use it in mixins but it'd at least be 
ok for cases like this then.