Re: String literals and wide_string literals - how?

["Jeffrey R. Carter" <jrcarter@acm.org>]

Simon Wright wrote:
> 
> It may not be useful but in some applications it's essential to know.
> 
> And it seems to me that a compiler that thought 2#00110011# was
> acceptable probably wouldn't itself be acceptable.

Why not? It adheres to the well defined and portable semantics Duff 
mentioned.

My point was that these kinds of arrays are promoted as a better way to 
access individual bits than logical operations and shifts. But unless 
you have some definition of which bit "Y (Y'First)" accesses, they're 
not useful for that because they're extremely compiler dependent, while 
logical operations and shifts are portable across compilers and targets. 
Some sort of correspondence with the bit numbers used in record 
representation clauses would be OK.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Mr. President, we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!"
Dr. Strangelove
33