[DFDL-WG] needed: signed bit fields

[Mike Beckerle]

current DFDL v1.0 spec says bit fields are all unsigned integers up to
length 64.

I am modeling data that uses lots of twos-complement 24-bit long and other
length signed integers on various bit-boundaries.

Was there a reason to leave signed twos-complement out for bit fields
(other than perhaps just we thought we might get away with it?)

The only corner case I can think of is if you make a 1-bit wide signed bit
field. This should be a Schema Defintion Error I believe, because
twos-complement isn't defined unless you have at  one sign bit, and at
least 1 mantissa bit.

...mikeb


-- 
Mike Beckerle | OGF DFDL WG Co-Chair | Tresys Technologies
Tel:  781-330-0412
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dfdl-wg/attachments/20121210/7297045a/attachment.html>