typedef's being strong in D and mere aliases in C has caused some confusion. Any interest in changing the keywords to:

    alias => typedef        // bonus being it's compatible with C's typedef
    typedef => typename

The downside is existing code must change (not too bad with a global file search/replace). If this change was to be made, sooner is certainly better.

-Walter

I might suggest eliminating the term "typedef" completely because of its C baggage.  If D semantics are significantly different, then use new names altogether.  (If you do use tyepdef then it should mean exactly what it does in C.)

I vote for simply "type" and "typealias".

Mark

Like the names

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:al0p32$1jva$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> typedef's being strong in D and mere aliases in C has caused some
confusion.
> Any interest in changing the keywords to:
>
>     alias => typedef        // bonus being it's compatible with C's
typedef
>     typedef => typename
>
> The downside is existing code must change (not too bad with a global file search/replace). If this change was to be made, sooner is certainly
better.
>
> -Walter
>
>

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in news:al0p32$1jva$2@digitaldaemon.com:

> typedef's being strong in D and mere aliases in C has caused some confusion. Any interest in changing the keywords to:
> 
>     alias => typedef        // bonus being it's compatible with C's
>     typedef typedef => typename
> 

I like the current names.  As far as I'm concerned typedef finally does what it should have all along.  However if you must change I would keep alias and choose a different name for typedef.

Walter wrote:

> typedef's being strong in D and mere aliases in C has caused some confusion.
> Any interest in changing the keywords to:
> 
>     alias => typedef        // bonus being it's compatible with C's typedef
>     typedef => typename
> 
> The downside is existing code must change (not too bad with a global file
> search/replace). If this change was to be made, sooner is certainly better.

I like the old version better (probably because "alias" makes it clear that it is an alias), but it is a cosmetic change actually, so no problem with the new syntax either... but wait, it's more to type! =)

My vote goes for ditching typedef if it is a problem.  I really like alias, because it is clear and explicit.  I also like the new typedef behavior, but I understand that it could confuse C/C++ programmers.  Personally typedef sounds like exactly the right word for what it does, but it will cause problems for people having to switch languages...  'type' would work for me.  'typename' sounds a little too much like 'make up a new name for this type', which is more like aliasing...  'maketype' might work, if it didn't look so odd.

I don't have a strong preference for particular words to take over 'typedef's job, but I have no particular interest in maintaining C compatibility.  Kill typedef and pick any word that sounds right...  Just keep alias the way it is.

Mac

In article <al0p32$1jva$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>typedef's being strong in D and mere aliases in C has caused some confusion. Any interest in changing the keywords to:
>
>    alias => typedef        // bonus being it's compatible with C's typedef
>    typedef => typename
>
>The downside is existing code must change (not too bad with a global file search/replace). If this change was to be made, sooner is certainly better.
>
>-Walter
>
>

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in news:al0p32$1jva$2@digitaldaemon.com:

>     alias => typedef        // bonus being it's compatible with C's
>     typedef typedef => typename

1. I think this confusion must be corrected.
2. If all must be changed, why not use two new keywords not present in C ?

"alias" and "type" will not confuse the C/C++ programmer. But all declaration must be reevaluated for a conversion to "alias" or "type" and keeping "typedef" could make the programmers not evaluate correctly what need be done. They will ignore the concepts and adopt all as "typedef".

C     	->    	D

typedef    	    	    	type
    	    	    	    	alias

Juarez Rudsatz wrote:

> "alias" and "type" will not confuse the C/C++ programmer.

I also think that "type" would be the best choice. But then,
it just looks somewhat weird to type something like:

	type void* HANDLE;

Maybe it's better to adopt Pascal syntax?

	type HANDLE = void*;
	alias LPINT = int*;

>Maybe it's better to adopt Pascal syntax?
>
>	type HANDLE = void*;
>	alias LPINT = int*;

I like that.  Does it cause any parsing problems?

Mac

Mac Reiter wrote:
>>Maybe it's better to adopt Pascal syntax?
>>
>>	type HANDLE = void*;
>>	alias LPINT = int*;
> 
> 
> I like that.  Does it cause any parsing problems?

Don't think so. What we have is a keyword (type/alias),
followed by an identifier, then equality sign, and
then everything until the first semicolon is a type
description.