• lurker (4/37) Jun 02 2010 You're apparently missing something. The D 2.0+ has and will be designed...
• Andrei Alexandrescu (9/62) Jun 02 2010 Tasteful irony (gave me a good chuckle), but unfortunately it's misplace...
• Trass3r (2/7) Jun 02 2010 Maybe we could also keep typedef foo bar; as syntactic sugar for some

lurker <lurk lurk.com> writes:

Lionello Lunesu Wrote:

 On 1-6-2010 5:38, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 05/31/2010 03:54 PM, bearophile wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu:
 typedef is gone.

 *mewls* I have shown here some examples of typedef usage, and I'll
 keep posting few more in future. I'd like to pull it back from the
 grave and keep it :-)

 
 It's wasted time. typedef is gone.
 
 Andrei

 
 :((
 
 I also miss typedef. I thought D had a great opportunity to fix it.
 
 Take something like the Windows headers. It mostly consists of typedefs
 for handles and whatnot. Without typedef you'd have to use alias and
 type safety is out of the windows.
 
 So what would be the way to translate those Windows headers? Create a
 unique struct for each old typedef? With alias this, and a ctor? Well,
 if that's the way to do it now, why not make typedef a shortcut for
 exactly that!?
 
 IIRC typedef is gone because you and Walter could not agree whether it
 had to be a subtype or a supertype of the typedef'ed type. For me it's
 rather simple: I want to introduce a new type in such a way that it
 helps me prevent mistakes, ie. passing one handle when the function
 wants another, even though both are based on void*, or whatever.
 
 Bring typedef back!

You're apparently missing something. The D 2.0+ has and will be designed by
real group of experts who have "garnered a solid reputation as a leading
innovator in programming languages and methods", i.e. Walther and Android. They
have huge experience designing the leading programming languages such as


The decade of community inspired D has already ended. There's too much momentum
behind the current design decisions to change that now. The future spec will be
"casual and conversational, but never at the expense of focus and precision".

You're only wasting your time if you wish D to change. It won't. D is focusing
on commercial multicore real world applications now. That's happens by using
Phobos & D2. Your previous bugs are magically gone. We need stability, we don't
need new features. Most importantly, we don't need no experimental features -
especially if your proposal comes from a competing language with a simpler
syntax and more rigorously presented semantics.

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

On 06/02/2010 10:21 AM, lurker wrote:
 Lionello Lunesu Wrote:

 On 1-6-2010 5:38, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 05/31/2010 03:54 PM, bearophile wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu:
 typedef is gone.

 *mewls* I have shown here some examples of typedef usage, and
 I'll keep posting few more in future. I'd like to pull it back
 from the grave and keep it :-)

 It's wasted time. typedef is gone.

 Andrei

 :((

 I also miss typedef. I thought D had a great opportunity to fix
 it.

 Take something like the Windows headers. It mostly consists of
 typedefs for handles and whatnot. Without typedef you'd have to use
 alias and type safety is out of the windows.

 So what would be the way to translate those Windows headers? Create
 a unique struct for each old typedef? With alias this, and a ctor?
 Well, if that's the way to do it now, why not make typedef a
 shortcut for exactly that!?

 IIRC typedef is gone because you and Walter could not agree whether
 it had to be a subtype or a supertype of the typedef'ed type. For
 me it's rather simple: I want to introduce a new type in such a way
 that it helps me prevent mistakes, ie. passing one handle when the
 function wants another, even though both are based on void*, or
 whatever.

 Bring typedef back!

 You're apparently missing something. The D 2.0+ has and will be
 designed by real group of experts who have "garnered a solid
 reputation as a leading innovator in programming languages and
 methods", i.e. Walther and Android. They have huge experience



 The decade of community inspired D has already ended. There's too
 much momentum behind the current design decisions to change that now.
 The future spec will be "casual and conversational, but never at the
 expense of focus and precision".

 You're only wasting your time if you wish D to change. It won't. D is
 focusing on commercial multicore real world applications now. That's
 happens by using Phobos&  D2. Your previous bugs are magically gone.
 We need stability, we don't need new features. Most importantly, we
 don't need no experimental features - especially if your proposal
 comes from a competing language with a simpler syntax and more
 rigorously presented semantics.

Tasteful irony (gave me a good chuckle), but unfortunately it's misplaced.

I suggested eliminating typedef exactly because it was ill-defined and 
it was lacking rigorous semantics. Walter agreed to eliminating it 
exactly because he was unable to ground typedef's definition. Also, 
progress in other, better-defined areas of the language afford us to 
implement typedef as a user-defined abstraction.

There are other things to be snarky about regarding D - have at them!


Andrei

Trass3r <un known.com> writes:

 I suggested eliminating typedef exactly because it was ill-defined and  
 it was lacking rigorous semantics. Walter agreed to eliminating it  
 exactly because he was unable to ground typedef's definition. Also,  
 progress in other, better-defined areas of the language afford us to  
 implement typedef as a user-defined abstraction.

Maybe we could also keep typedef foo bar; as syntactic sugar for some  
template magic or whatever it will be in the end.