Re: Endianness independance

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

Lionel.DRAGHI@fr.thalesgroup.com wrote in message ...
>I was speaking of "A Proposal for Endian-Portable Record Representation
>Clauses", which suggest to get non default bit order support mandatory,
and
>the byte offset (the number between "at" and "range" within
representation
>clauses) related to machine scalar instead of byte.
>
>As i understand it, this proposal cause no upward compatibility
problem, but
>i have no idea of the rework it could cause within compilers.


His proposal was turned into AI-133.

Unfortunately, he stopped attending meetings about that time. When we
(the ARG) considered his proposal, we couldn't understand the the
details (which were never written up in the standard form), and
essentially assigned someone to make a complete proposal. It's still on
someone's action list, but it seems likely that other priorities (such
as coming to a consensus on a solution to the mutually dependent types
problem) will keep it from being addressed again.

                    Randy Brukardt
                    ARG Editor