First life-signs of type functions

[Stefan Koch]

On Tuesday, 12 May 2020 at 11:39:04 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:

> Honestly, to me this sounds like a total mess. If templates 
> allow binding alias to a value, so should type functions, or 
> they should use a different name than "alias". Otherwise it's 
> just confusing. To me it looks like for type functions, you 
> think of "alias" as something like the "type of types". But for 
> alias template parameters and alias declarations it is 
> something completely different (as Steven  explained, it is an 
> unrestricted compile-time name). For example, consider the 
> following: [ ... ]

are you sure that that is the case for alias declarations?
For me
alias a = "Foo";
causes Error: basic type expected, not "Foo"
Which is identical to how they behave in type functions;