C bitfields guarantees

[Walter Bright]

On 7/6/2024 8:54 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> The point was: D should actually specify more bitfield layout guarantees than 
> the C standard.

I understand that. Given that any desired portable bitfield layout can be done 
with minimal effort, there is no need to add more semantics to the language than 
what C does.

I.e. portable not only to the associated C compiler, but to any C compiler with 
8 bit chars and 32 bit ints.

Throw me an example that shows me wrong!

Personally, I would find this to be much more readable code than adding more 
syntactical constructs.