Currently these are labelled LsbFirst (0) and MsbFirst (1). If no BitOrder attribute is applied, behaviour is as per LsbFirst, which aligns with the existing behaviour (all current tests pass).
Currently there is no exception thrown for if a byte is used by both an LsbFirst and an MsbFirst field (which I believe should be unsupported operation). I did attempt to add this, but I couldn't get it working right (it appeared there were LSB writes occuring even though I only had MSB fields defined). I think these exceptions could be introduced later if necessary (perhaps both MSB and LSB access is a use case for someone).
jefffhaynes
commented
1 year ago
Currently these are labelled LsbFirst (0) and MsbFirst (1). If no BitOrder attribute is applied, behaviour is as per LsbFirst, which aligns with the existing behaviour (all current tests pass).
Currently there is no exception thrown for if a byte is used by both an LsbFirst and an MsbFirst field (which I believe should be unsupported operation). I did attempt to add this, but I couldn't get it working right (it appeared there were LSB writes occuring even though I only had MSB fields defined). I think these exceptions could be introduced later if necessary (perhaps both MSB and LSB access is a use case for someone).
Fixes #205