Wouldn't this be better with bitfields?

[claptrap]

On Friday, 5 July 2024 at 16:48:29 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/3/2024 6:47 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> But... I'm thinking now, why not just specify that? If you use 
>> uint, this is the explicit layout, and any C compiler that 
>> doesn't implement that mechanism, D does not support bitfield 
>> compatibility.
>> That would go a long way to alleviating any concerns that 
>> portability would be based on the whim of some C compiler.
>> 
>> This should be fine, because, as you say, everyone already 
>> does it that way. D has the opportunity to make this official.
>
> AFAIK, no C compiler has bothered to document the details of 
> their bit field layout.
>
> As for D, it specifies that the layout will match that of the 
> "associated C compiler".
>
> We could add a "best practices" note in the spec.

D should not be adding language features that change their 
specification depending on what external C compiler happens to be 
attached to the project.

That is a ridiculous design.

You need to detox your brain of C. First it was C functions 
should be assumed safe, then it was string interpolation should 
be built around printf compatibility, and now it's bitfields 
should change their implementation based on whatever C compiler 
is attached?

The C part of your brain keeps leading you done one bad path 
after another.