On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> At present, we have a defining construct > > (typealias id type-decl) > > the purpose of this was to give a convenience name for otherwise unnamed > types. > > The keyword TYPEALIAS stands out as inconsistent. All other defining > forms begin with "def". I initially resisted DEFTYPE because the form > doesn't actually define a new type -- it only binds a name to an > existing type. > > However, I am coming to the conclusion that DEFTYPE is visually > preferable, and the possible interpretation that > > (deftype nm type) > > would introduce a new, named type that was incompatible with the > existing one seems to have faded out of the idea space in the language. > > Unless there are objections, I will rename TYPEALIAS to DEFTYPE. > My guess is that it is OK, especially because: C says typedef and does typealias BitC says deftype and does typealias. Swaroop. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
