Get rid of bit and bit[] ?

[Stewart Gordon]

Walter Bright wrote:
> I think the basic type bit has been a failure. It's a substantial increase 
> in the compiler and runtime complexity to support it. Nobody seems happy 
> about bit being a boolean type. There's no reasonable way to take a pointer 
> to a bit, meaning that out and inout bit parameters are inconsistent and 
> kludgy.
> 
> Should bit and bit[] be removed before 1.0?
> 
> There is a place for bit[] as a library type, though.
> 
> So what do people think?

I was just thinking about my BitArray stuff in my utility library

http://pr.stewartsplace.org.uk/d/sutil/

and looking again at how it's implemented.  It doesn't use D's bit 
arrays internally, so the only implication for the library really is 
getting rid of the conversions to and from them.  (And debugging the 
big-endian implementation logic!)

But it's worth looking at it before reinventing the wheel, at least for 
those of you who haven't already reinvented the wheel.... :-)

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.