On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 at 20:48:24 UTC, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:39 PM, monarch_dodra <monarchdodra@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> Anyways, the details are there if you want details. I don't know which way
>> it'll go.
>>
>
> OK. I'll wait for a stabilized syntax for alias this.
>
> But the new `alias newSym = oldSym;` is implemented, right?

Definitely.

On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 at 20:48:24 UTC, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:39 PM, monarch_dodra wrote:

>> Anyways, the details are there if you want details. I don't know which way it'll go.
>
> OK. I'll wait for a stabilized syntax for alias this.
>
> But the new `alias newSym = oldSym;` is implemented, right?

 As far as I can tell, Yes. I'll still be using 'alias oldSym newSym;' for a long time most likely, unless there's a big reason to switch.

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Era Scarecrow <rtcvb32@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 at 20:48:24 UTC, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
>
>  On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:39 PM, monarch_dodra wrote:
>>
>
>  Anyways, the details are there if you want details. I don't know which
>>> way it'll go.
>>>
>>
>> OK. I'll wait for a stabilized syntax for alias this.
>>
>> But the new `alias newSym = oldSym;` is implemented, right?
>>
>
>  As far as I can tell, Yes. I'll still be using 'alias oldSym newSym;' for
> a long time most likely, unless there's a big reason to switch.
>

When I stop D for a few weeks and come back to it, I'm sometimes confused as to which is the old symbol and which is the new one.

For a declaration:

type newSym = oldSym;

is standard.

alias nemSym = oldSym;

will be easy to get used to