Open source dmd on Reddit!

[Ary Borenszweig]

Michel Fortin escribió:
> On 2009-03-06 14:35:59 -0500, Walter Bright <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> 
> said:
> 
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> "Can't live without bitfields! Give me bitfields and I'll lift the 
>>> Earth!"
>>>
>>> "Here they are, std.bitmanip. Well-defined and more portable and 
>>> flexible than C's."
>>>
>>> "Meh, don't like the definition syntax."
>>
>> Classic.
> 
> Well, he certainly has a point. Compare this:
> 
>     mixin(bitfields!(
>         uint, "x",    2,
>         int,  "y",    3,
>         uint, "z",    2,
>         bool, "flag", 1));
> 
> With this:
> 
>     uint x : 2;
>     int  y : 3;
>     uint z : 2;
>     bool flag : 1;
> 
> The second is certainly prettier and more readable.
> 
> Does it matter much? Not to me; I rarely use bit fields. If I were using 
> them a lot, perhaps I'd be more concerned.
> 
> While I don't care very much about bitfields, that "mixin(tmpl!(...))" 
> syntax is awful. "mixin tmpl!(...)" is better, but has too many 
> limitations, and it isn't always clear for the user which one should be 
> used. Couldn't D2 get a better syntax for mixins?

Well, now the \ is character if free:

\bitfields(
   unit, "x", 2,
   int, "y", 3,
   uint, "z", 2,
   bool, "flag", 1,
);

But I think it looks ugly: the \ is "lambda" in some languages and this 
also reminds me of LaTeX... :-P