Wouldn't this be better with bitfields?

[claptrap]

On Saturday, 6 July 2024 at 23:36:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/6/2024 10:56 AM, Dukc wrote:
>> The question is, why does the C-compatible one have to be the 
>> language-level one?
>
> Because it's sooo convenient and it makes mixed C/D programs 
> even easier.
>
> User convenience can't be oversold, that's been hammered into 
> me over decades.

And you cant find a way to do it that doesn't require D bitfields 
being built on shifting sands?

And it's a niche feature, in a niche situation, really how many 
people are going to be doing mixed C/D programs, and how many of 
them will need compatibility between C and D bitfields.

We should not be letting C idiocy infect the D language.