On Sunday, 21 September 2014 at 20:49:02 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 19:56:48 +0200
> Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> It is after all a convenience feature
> easy type safety is just "a convient feature"? O_O
>
> i'm wordless.

I am waiting for a patch...

On 9/21/14, 1:41 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:09:28 -0700
> Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> alias Int1 = Typedef!(int, "a.Int1");
>>>> alias Int2 = Typedef!(int, "b.Int2");
>>> ah, now that's cool. module system? wut? screw it, we have
>>> time-proven manual prefixing!
>> Use __MODULE__. -- Andrei
> you still can't grok concept of "ugly == unusable".

Also I must be missing the distinction between "workable solution" and "usable solution". Such semantic subtleties seem to be lost on me in this context.

> thank you, i'd
> better fsck this miserably attempt on type security, and many other
> practical programmers too. we trying to explain you this and each time
> you answers "so what? no, it's not." even to people who tried to use
> this disgusting "solution" and found it unacceptable and broken.

The problem here is inept argumentation. I'm all for a well argued debate. This argument seems to have trouble getting legs, and foaming at the mouth is unlikely to add value to it.

> alias Int1 = Typedef!(int, __MODULE__~".Int1");
>
> don't make me laugh. this is not just ugly, this is MEGAUGLY.

Pretty much by what I mean with "foaming at the mouth" and "vivid anecdote fallacy". Can you make an argument with words in the dictionary?

> then we
> can make some kind of magic template to hide this uglyness, yes. the
> uglyness which shouldn't be there in the first place. each time when
> such ugly "workaround" proposed we can see the feature as completely
> broken.
>
> people trying to tell you that it is broken for single developer (too
> much to type for nothing). that it is broken for group developement
> (people will forget to mix all the uglyness for necessary result). that
> it is just broken.
>
> please, we aren't bunch of kids who just happen to dislike typing extra
> chars. our objections backed by trying to use the feature in practice.

I'm not buying this. The more it goes the less convincing it goes.


Andrei

On 9/21/14, 2:32 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 20:48:34 +0000
> Tourist via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> Why don't you capitalize?
> it's my "one man's crusade" against the thing i see as completely
> useless.
>
>> Looks like you're a reasonable person, and this makes an outsider
>> think that your IQ is lower than the average. IMO.
> and my English is bad too (mea culpa; i have to fix it by taking some
> courses). but i believe that arguments aren't depend of the speaker.
> and i don't care what people think about my personality. if they choose
> to ignore everything i'm writing just 'cause they think that i'm dumb...
> ah, so be it. it's arguments that counts, not their source.

I don't mind the capitalization, ad hominem, etc. The arguments against Typedef are honestly terrible (by all participants), and the attempts at enhancing them through hyperbole are embarrassing. -- Andrei

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 15:22:05 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>
wrote:

> I don't mind the capitalization, ad hominem, etc. The arguments against Typedef are honestly terrible (by all participants), and the attempts at enhancing them through hyperbole are embarrassing. -- Andrei
this discussion raises some heat, methinks. we all should take some rest and calm down. sorry for beung rude and so on. nothing personal. ;-)

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 15:17:52 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>
wrote:

> I'm not buying this. The more it goes the less convincing it goes.
oh. i'm off, i just don't know what else to say. this discussion seems to go in circles, so it's better to put it on hold for some time. at least until someone invents better arguments. ;-)

On 09/22/2014 12:17 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> "vivid anecdote fallacy"

FWIW: https://www.google.ch/?gws_rd=cr&ei=XVYfVIu7IcL1OYi7gMgH#q=%22vivid+anecdote+fallacy%22

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 22:07:21 +0000
Ola Fosheim Grostad via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>
wrote:

> I am waiting for a patch...
i believe that we should revive 'typedef' keyword, but i'm not fully convinced yet. so i'll wait a little more. but you guessed it right, i'm thinking about another patch. ;-)

On Sunday, 21 September 2014 at 23:00:09 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> i believe that we should revive 'typedef' keyword, but i'm not fully
> convinced yet. so i'll wait a little more. but you guessed it right,
> i'm thinking about another patch. ;-)

It's a nice small project, if I didn't have backlog I'd give it a go. Sounds fun.

On 09/21/2014 12:08 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 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.

Make sure to not fall prey to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy though.

On 09/22/2014 12:22 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I don't mind the capitalization, ad hominem, etc. The arguments against
> Typedef are honestly terrible (by all participants), ...

Some participants have pointed out (some more vivdly than others) that it is less convenient and less sane than a trivial library alternative using e.g. template mixins. There's currently simply too much incentive to roll one's own that does the job better if the functionality is at all required. That's not a "terrible" argument.

On 9/21/14, 3:52 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 09/22/2014 12:17 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> "vivid anecdote fallacy"
>
> FWIW:
> https://www.google.ch/?gws_rd=cr&ei=XVYfVIu7IcL1OYi7gMgH#q=%22vivid+anecdote+fallacy%22

Pretty awesome :o). I was referring to "misleading vividness:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_vividness - which shows up once in a while in this forum... -- Andrei