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!tgr!PALLAS@SU-SCORE.ARPA From: Joseph I. PallasNewsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Standard for union initialization? Message-ID: <6995@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Fri, 4-Jan-85 13:24:44 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.6995 Posted: Fri Jan 4 13:24:44 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 6-Jan-85 00:43:48 EST Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 26 Perhaps I'm out of touch.... An article I read about the draft standard said the standard would allow initialization of unions, but the first union field would be the type used for the initialization. Instead of insisting on union { foo; bar; mumble; } baz = ; why not use a more general scheme like union { foo; bar; mumble; } baz.mumble = ; Since no existing compiler that I know of lets you initialize unions at all currently, there's nothing to be lost by going with the more flexible system. joe -------