But this makes me wonder if another abstraction, say DEFBITFIELD would be useful. Something like:
The more expressive, the better IMHO.
(defbitfield name (0 sym1 sym2 ...)
Never thought about it. But who says bitfields will soon say "arbitrary width". Not everything is a single bit.
Regards, Jörg Höhle.
"Hoehle, Joerg-Cyril" Joerg-Cyril.Hoehle@t-systems.com writes:
(defbitfield name (0 sym1 sym2 ...)
Never thought about it. But who says bitfields will soon say "arbitrary width". Not everything is a single bit.
Yeah, I thought about that so I don't plan to place any restrictions on the mask (so the user can use numbers other than 2^n). Only restriction that might make sense is to check if it's smaller that the canonical type's size.
-
Hoehle, Joerg-Cyril -
Luís Oliveira