On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com>wrote:
Brian Bartman wrote: "align" would be a better name. "Bit" is useless in context.
The original name was going to be align, however I encountered a naming conflict with boost.Type Traits' align. Then after implementing it as bit_align, I later move all of the templates which make up the bitfield_class template interface into a separate namespace (namespace bitfields). So fixing that is quick. So as a general question should the namespace have a name other then bitfields? Would fields be a better name? And should the bitfield_tuple data structure be within that namespace as well?
When you document this mechanism, I suggest wording more like, "Ensures the offset of the next bit field is divisible by the supplied value."
Thanks for this, I was have some trouble figuring out how exactly to word this for my documentation.
filler<std::size_t> -> bits to be skipped.
Instead of "filler," how about "padding," "reserve," or even "ignore?"
I'm going to go with padding.
I think "field" would be a better name. "Member" is too suggestive of classes and the parts in this context are called "bit fields," right?
The initial intent of the interface of the bitfield_tuple was to make it feel sort of like a class/struct, while the user was supplying the template parameters. For instance, struct rgb565_t { unsigned char red:5; unsigned char green:6; unsigned char blue:5; }; would become something along the lines of, struct red; struct green; struct blue; typedef bitfield_tuple< member<unsigned char, red, 5>, member<unsigned char,green, 6>, member<unsigned char,blue,5>
rgb565_t;
storage<typename> -> uses the supplied type for internal storage.
I presume you mean that dictates the underlying storage type for the entire bitfield_tuple. I'm not sure I like that interface. I think two distinct types, one that computes the storage type and one that requires it (as the first template argument) might be better. That implies, of course, creating distinct names. Perhaps "bitfield_tuple" and "typed_bitfield_tuple?" (The latter is rather verbose, but no more so than "storage<some_type>" in the current scheme.)
_____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- thanks, Brian Bartman