http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4937
Era Scarecrow changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rtcv...@yahoo.com
--- Comment #2 from Era Scarecrow 2012-07-31 19:11:09 PDT
---
> Also, I think I'm going to request that repeated bitfield definitions be
> allowed if they are identical - I'd like to redeclare "opcode" rather than "".
How would you tell them apart? If i know how you may want to call them, i may
be able to make something. I can understand with registers, but still need some
way to work with them. Perhaps as a set then?
> So I would like the bitmanip code to permit redeclaration of bitfields that
> are identical in all respects.
>That is, obviously the names are the same, but the field width, offset, and
>type representation has to be the same as well.
Maybe?
struct S {
mixin(bitfields!(
uint, "opcode", 4,
uint, "register", 4,
uint, "register", 4,
uint, "register", 4
));
}
and using the registers would have function signature like...
struct Register {
uint register_1;
uint register_2;
uint register_3;
}
//setters, likely can't be @propery
void register(uint reg1, uint reg2, uint reg3);
void register(uint[] register ...); //maybe?
void register(Register register);
//getter ??
Register register() const;
Or perhaps...
struct S {
mixin(bitfields!(
uint, "opcode", 4,
uint, "reg1", 4,
uint, "reg2", 4,
uint, "reg3", 4
));
mixin(sharedNameSet(
"nameForGetterAndSetter",
"struct name for returning/passing",
"reg1", "reg2", "reg3" //named variables as a set
));
//nameForGetterAndSetter's would be added here, perhaps as above.
}
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
