Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!lupine!rfg
From: rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Packing, Ordering, and Rearranging
Message-ID: <1233@lupine.NCD.COM>
Date: 18 Aug 90 08:10:39 GMT
References: <1030@lupine.NCD.COM> <56637@microsoft.UUCP> <195@xstor.UUCP>
Organization: Network Computing Devices, Inc., Mt. View, CA
Lines: 23

In article <195@xstor.UUCP> iverson@xstor.UUCP (Tim Iverson) writes:
<Both packing and ordering are highly desirable for the simple reason that
<as the language (C/C++) stands now, it cannot deal *transparently* with the
<real world.  This is due solely to the lack of rigor in the specification
<for the definition of a struct - the compiler is allowed too much latitude
<in the physical layout of a struct.

This is *not* true in C!  We lost something valuable on our way to C++.

<If the language had constructs for specifying such things as packing and
<ordering (bit, word, etc.), it could deal transparently with structures
<created outside of its own venue and should result in code that is
<both cleaner and more portable.

You can definitely specify what you want the exact layout of a struct to be
in C and have it be obeyed and have it be portable.  People do it all the
time.  Now if only this were possible in C++. :-(

-- 

// Ron Guilmette  -  C++ Entomologist
// Internet: rfg@ncd.com      uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg
// Motto:  If it sticks, force it.  If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.