Josh Junon

Good point about Visual Basic. However, when thinking about `typedef` readability in C++, these kinds of typedefs come to mind: ``` c++ typedef __detail::_Adaptor engine_value_type; typedef __detail::_Hash_node _Node; typedef integral_constant...

@Polyg0n I'm pretty sure I want them. I want to make sure they mesh well with the trait-based design. If they are incorporated, they will semantically resemble Java's generics more...

_The top-most post has been updated to reflect the current state of the RFC._

`typedef` -> `type`. Seems much cleaner and drives home that it's an _actual_ new type (unlike C++ treating it more like an alias).

Precisely, though backwards. `as`' pattern of thought is _something should be known **as**..._.

// @Polygn

@Polygn the second.

But also less readable, I think. If you're curious, all of the code I'm writing to test the lexer/parser is being pasted into a word document with no syntax highlighting...

UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-32 and UTF-64. ``` arua typedef [u8] as str8 typedef [u16] as str16 typedef [u32] as str32 typedef [u64] as str64 alias str8 as str ```

@Polygn yep see the updated #3 for why the `typedef` and `alias` keywords are how they are in the above comment.