Re: Should representation clauses be complete for each bit?

[okellogg <okellogg@users.sourceforge.net>]

On 23 Jul., 02:13, "Randy Brukardt" <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote:
> [...]
>  I understand the complaint here, but I still think that explictly
> specifying the bit packing in this way is best. The syntax that requires
> mentioning both the low and high bits is overkill, but that has nothing to
> do with this particular issue -- it is overkill for *any* record. We really
> need an alternative shorter syntax for these lines in a record
> representation clause:
>
>             Gap1 at 0 bit 1;
>
> or something like that. No one ever wants to give the high bound in these
> clauses -- it's almost pointless and a real pain if it might change (note
> the most general form given above).

So the number given after "bit" is the starting bit? I like that idea.
(Well, after all we still need to be aware of sizes, be it just to
figure out the next available starting bit.)

Oliver