Trass3r wrote: > It's ill-defined. There are 4 possible types of typedef: > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5467 [...] > Again, this thread is all about discussing the right way to do it > and not about what the buggy and holey spec reads. [...] > I don't see any merit in that.
You meight be blind. The only way to eject this possibility is to prove that there cannot be any merit. Currently a good approximation of your intentions for the replacment of `enum's seems to be a wood of rooted almost-DAGs on types, where the edges in the DAGs represent the allowed implicit conversions, the inner nodes are represented by tags and the leaves are represented by members. Maybe that the "almost" is not necessary. -manfred
