typedef, why did it go? Is there anything instead?

[bearophile]

Walter:

> I don't really have an opinion on it, except that generally when I'm debugging 
> I'm interested in what a type really is, not the layer over it.

Both are useful to know for the programmer. See in this enhancement request of mine what both Clang and GCC do:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5004

Bye,
bearophile