Regarding the proposed Binray Literals Deprecation

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On 9/10/22 1:48 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> What's ironic about this discussion is the exact opposite happened with 
> D bitfields.
> 
> After implementing it for C, I realized that we could add bitfields to D 
> by simply turning the existing implementation on. The code was already 
> there, it was already supported and debugged.
> 
> The other side preferred a template solution that didn't have quite the 
> simple syntax that the C solution had, whereas I thought bitfields would 
> be used enough to justify the simpler builtin syntax.

I'm not sure that's correct. I think we all preferred a *cross-platform* 
solution. I.e. a defined bitfield system which does the same thing on 
all platforms, not necessarily what C does.

I personally dislike the phobos bitfields, just because of how they are 
specified. I'd much prefer a builtin bitfield system.

-Steve