Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: Standard for union initialization? Message-ID: <7004@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Fri, 4-Jan-85 16:47:09 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7004 Posted: Fri Jan 4 16:47:09 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 6-Jan-85 00:48:39 EST References: <6995@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 11 > why not use a more general scheme like > > union { > foo; > bar; > mumble; > } baz.mumble = ; But "baz.mumble" is not what you want the union to be called. This addition would certainly make for a messier language syntax definition.