Library Typedefs are fundamentally broken

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 9/20/14, 1:52 PM, bearophile wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu:
>
>>> Have you used it in your real D code three or more times?
>>
>> No, but that doesn't mean much.
>
> It means that I have more experience than you in using Typedef, and in
> my experience their usage is not so good.

Aye. What I meant was "it doesn't mean Typedef is unusable; I just 
didn't need for that particular facility".

What I'm saying after skimming 
https://issues.dlang.org/buglist.cgi?f1=short_desc&list_id=106755&o1=casesubstring&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&v1=Typedef 
is that all or at least most issues are trivial to fix.

My perception of this thread is that there's an abundance of that 
misleading vividness fallacy 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_vividness). Rhetoric techniques 
blow the most trivial matters out of proportion and build to the foaming 
co(ncl|f)usion that "less convenient than a baked-in facility" really 
means "unusable". I don't care for that kind of argument.

Fix that stuff, go your merry way and use Typedef.


Andrei