Working on a library: request for code review

[Rene Zwanenburg via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Thursday, 19 June 2014 at 12:06:58 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> On Wednesday, 18 June 2014 at 14:05:12 UTC, Rene Zwanenburg 
> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 at 13:07:33 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>>> On Monday, 16 June 2014 at 23:04:33 UTC, Rene Zwanenburg 
>>> wrote:
>>>> This one depends on taste, but these helpers can be 
>>>> eliminated by changing the Header definition a little. It's 
>>>> the same union / anonymous struct trick from the previous 
>>>> post, only this time with bitfields:
>>>>
>>>> http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/13258b0ce0c4
>>>
>>> If you define nested structs/unions, it's better to make them 
>>> static whenever possible, because non-static nested structs 
>>> have an additional hidden field for the context.
>>
>> Good call. In this case it doesn't add the hidden field, but 
>> for the sake of consistency I agree it's better to add static.
>
> Interesting, I thought it's there for all nested structs. But I 
> see it's only added if the struct has a method, but then it's 
> always there, no matter whether the methods actually accesses 
> the outer context. Probably for consistency reasons...

The absence of the hidden field without methods is probably to 
maintain C compitability; code that is both valid C and D must 
have the same semantics. I think that includes struct layout?