Library Typedefs are fundamentally broken

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 9/22/14, 11:52 AM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> seems that Andrei talking about 'idiomatic D' and we are talking about
> 'hacky typedef replacement'. that's why we can't settle the issue: we
> are both right! ;-)

That I'd agree with.

> and that's why we need 'typedef' revived, methinks.

Sorry, no.


Andrei