On 8/2/12 9:48 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Thursday, 2 August 2012 at 12:38:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 8/2/12 5:26 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
One of the *big* reasons I'm against having a hand chosen padding, is
that the implementation *should* be able to find out what the most
efficient padding is on the current machine (could be 32 on some, could
be 64 on some)
In my neck of the woods they call that "non-portability".
If your code is dependent on the machine's characteristics you use
version() and whatnot.
Well, isn't that the entire point: Making your code NOT dependent on the
machine's characteristics?
By forcing the developer to chose the bitfield size (32 or 64), you ARE
forcing him to make a choice dependent on the machine's characteristics.
I think that's backwards.
Andrei
