On Saturday 09 November 2013 19:56:55 Sieghard wrote: > Disregarding that it's identical to my example, I don't think it looks any > _better_, it in fact adds a lot of fuzz (the "$" signs and the many zeros) > that effectively hide the real information from immediate recognition. > I still maintain that for such a use, a direct bit size specfication would > be clearer. > Your suggestion how to define the bit size of a type?
> On the other hand, your invention of the new keyword "bitpacked" looks > quite good to me, as it makes clear that this record definition describes a > densely packed data structure that's unequivocally defined - no "padding" > of any size, and no wasted space from "access optimisation" for some > processor. No invention, FPC has it already. > My suggestion: if you're going to implement such a thing, use it. > (The "bitpacked" keyword, i.e.) > I don't understand. Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers Accelerate application performance with scalable programming models. Explore techniques for threading, error checking, porting, and tuning. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60136231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ mseide-msegui-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mseide-msegui-talk
