On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 06:43:30AM +0100, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > > > >> Hmm, that's a little suboptimal. But still a lot better than nothing. > >> I'll see what I can do with them. > >> > >> Thanks a lot! > > > > Yes, something in-between is most probably needed and be clearly specified: > - does it need to define a new type like done for bitwise? > Or can it be used like a specifier/attribute > - when a warning is required: only out-casting? > - when __force is needed? For my use case it'd treat it exactly like __bitwise except for also allowing arithmetics on it. Bonus for always allowing 0 withou explicit __force cast just like __bitwise.
