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.