second draft: add Bitfields to D

[Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole]

On 29/04/2024 1:32 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> In any case, it seems like the core issue that's resulting in most of the
> debate over this DIP is how important some people think that it is to have a
> guaranteed bit layout by default so that bugs which come from relying on a
> layout that isn't guaranteed will be avoided. You don't seem to think that
> that's much of a concern, whereas some of the other folks think that it's a
> big concern.

I'm not sure that anyone cares what the default is.

For the most part you're in use case #3 by default, its only if you're 
dealing with a binding or serialization that you care and each of those 
are specialized enough to opt-in to whatever strategy is appropriate.

But one thing that has been on my kill list for PhobosV3 is string 
mixins publicly introducing any new symbols like... bitfields.

Simply because auto-completion cannot see it, and may never be able to 
see it due to the CTFE requirement.

https://github.com/LightBender/PhobosV3-Design/discussions/32