is there a template or something in phobos to get the same typesafe behaviour of good old typedef ?

S.

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Stephan <spam@extrawurst.org> wrote:

> is there a template or something in phobos to get the same typesafe behaviour of good old typedef ?
>
> S.
>

Get over it, move on, and hope they fix the thousands of bugs left in DMD.

P.S.
use `alias`.

> is there a template or something in phobos to get the same typesafe behaviour of good old typedef ?

I've brought this up several times.
People just don't give a shit.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5467

On Friday, December 30, 2011 11:35:28 Stephan wrote:
> is there a template or something in phobos to get the same typesafe behaviour of good old typedef ?

There's a pull request being reviewed but nothing in Phobos yet.

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/300

- Jonathan M Davis

On 30.12.2011 12:09, Trass3r wrote:
>> is there a template or something in phobos to get the same typesafe
>> behaviour of good old typedef ?
>
> I've brought this up several times.
> People just don't give a shit.
>
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5467

thats too bad. pull request looks good. i voted for the ticket, but i guess that no one gives shit about that either :(

2011/12/30 Stephan <spam@extrawurst.org>:
> On 30.12.2011 12:09, Trass3r wrote:
>>>
>>> is there a template or something in phobos to get the same typesafe behaviour of good old typedef ?
>>
>>
>> I've brought this up several times.
>> People just don't give a shit.
>>
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5467
>
>
> thats too bad. pull request looks good. i voted for the ticket, but i guess that no one gives shit about that either :(

Sure they give a shit. :-) I think Andrei is currently looking into ProxyOf for a new reference-counting type constructor.

Torarin

On 30/12/2011 10:35, Stephan wrote:
> is there a template or something in phobos to get the same typesafe
> behaviour of good old typedef ?

Could someone please provide a link to the thread with the reasons for deprecating typedef?  There are too many threads with the words "typedef" and "deprecate" in them for me to find it easily.

Stewart.

Basically it was deprecated because it's poorly defined and implemented.
There are several types of typedefs that need to be available: parallel, opaque, supertype and subtype.
See http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5467

On 31/12/2011 13:34, Trass3r wrote:
> Basically it was deprecated because it's poorly defined and implemented.
<snip>

Would you care to elaborate?  Moreover, if that's the only reason then why not improve it rather than getting rid of it?

> There are several types of typedefs that need to be available: parallel,
> opaque, supertype and subtype.
> See http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5467

I see.  So the built-in typedef is closest in semantics to subtype, but leaves bits to be desired.

Stewart.