http://notanumber.net/archives/33/newtype-in-c-a-touch-of-strong-typing-using-compound-literals Programming, Theory, and Math Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:33:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://notanumber.net/archives/33/newtype-in-c-a-touch-of-strong-typing-using-compound-literals/comment-page-1#comment-2938 Patrick Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:07:11 +0000 http://notanumber.net/?p=33#comment-2938 I mostly agree. I've thought this would be fantastic for a while, but I don't like doing with the preprocessor in this manner because the syntax of it is so obviously forced and unnatural. Something nicer, IMHO, would be an optional flag to your CC of choice to treat typedef in the fashion of newtype. Still, this is good stuff. I mostly agree. I’ve thought this would be fantastic for a while, but I don’t like doing with the preprocessor in this manner because the syntax of it is so obviously forced and unnatural. Something nicer, IMHO, would be an optional flag to your CC of choice to treat typedef in the fashion of newtype. Still, this is good stuff.

]]> http://notanumber.net/archives/33/newtype-in-c-a-touch-of-strong-typing-using-compound-literals/comment-page-1#comment-2912 Peter Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:43:46 +0000 http://notanumber.net/?p=33#comment-2912 John, I like this trick but it does not provide as much security as Haskell's newtype - I cannot hide the constructor, so to speak. Still, I guess there's no point in being too paranoid... John, I like this trick but it does not provide as much security as Haskell’s newtype – I cannot hide the constructor, so to speak. Still, I guess there’s no point in being too paranoid…

]]>