Please add documentation of the bitfield ordering for ctypes.Structure types

Documentation

The current documentation for ctypes bit fields is very limited and doesn't cover the definition order. AFAICT this is:
Little endian - LSB first -> MSB last
Big endian - MSB first -> LSB last
Native - ??? This is LSB first -> MSB last on x86 but is that just because it's a little endian architecture?

For example:

class BigOnes(BigEndianStructure):
   _pack_ = 1
    _fields_ = (
        ("bit_0", c_uint16, 1),  # MSBit
        ("bit_1", c_uint16, 1),
        ("bit_2", c_uint16, 1),
        ("bit_3", c_uint16, 1),
        ("nibble_1", c_uint16, 4),
        ("nibble_2", c_uint16, 4),
        ("nibble_3", c_uint16, 4),  # LSBit
        ("byte_3", c_uint16, 8),  # MSByte
        ("byte_4", c_uint16, 8),  # LSByte
    )

Versus:

class LittleOnes(LittleEndianStructure):
    _pack_ = 1
    _fields_ = (
        ("bit_0", c_uint16, 1),  # LSBit
        ("bit_1", c_uint16, 1),
        ("bit_2", c_uint16, 1),
        ("bit_3", c_uint16, 1),
        ("nibble_1", c_uint16, 4),
        ("nibble_2", c_uint16, 4),
        ("nibble_3", c_uint16, 4),  # MSBit
        ("byte_3", c_uint16, 8),  # LSByte
        ("byte_4", c_uint16, 8),  # MSByte
    )

Beginne mit der ctypes-Dokumentation zu Structure, BigEndianStructure und LittleEndianStructure und verwende die bereitgestellten Bitfeldbeispiele als die zu erklärenden Fälle. Ermittle und dokumentiere die Definitionsreihenfolge für Little-Endian-, Big-Endian- und native Strukturen, einschließlich des architekturabhängigen Verhaltens, und überprüfe, dass der resultierende Text eindeutig ist.