Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site chalmers.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!enea!chalmers!uddeborg From: uddeborg@chalmers.UUCP (G|ran Uddeborg) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: Standard for union initialization? Message-ID: <177@chalmers.UUCP> Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 17:50:18 EST Article-I.D.: chalmers.177 Posted: Wed Jan 16 17:50:18 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jan-85 01:22:00 EST References: <6995@brl-tgr.ARPA> <7004@brl-tgr.ARPA> <6847@watdaisy.UUCP> <10884@watmath.UUCP> Reply-To: uddeborg@chalmers.UUCP (G|ran uddeborg) Organization: Dept. of CS, Chalmers, Sweden Lines: 23 Summary: In article <10884@watmath.UUCP> kpmartin@watmath.UUCP (Kevin Martin) writes: ... >union { >foo; > bar; > mumble; >}baz = mumble = ; >Since can be an expression in C already, you might find that >your compiler's grammar already allows this, and it is only detected as >an error after further analysis. > >Of course, if the "element =" is absent, the first element could be >initialized. Similarly for the implicit zeroing of un-initialized >static storage. > Kevin Martin, UofW Software Development Group. What about the ".=" operator discussed elsewhere in this group? :-) -- "For me, UNIX is a way of being." (Originally: Armando P. Stettner) G|ran Uddeborg {seismo,philabs,decvax}!mcvax!enea!chalmers!uddeborg