Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdaisy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
From: ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Standard for union initialization?
Message-ID: <6856@watdaisy.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 12:02:11 EST
Article-I.D.: watdaisy.6856
Posted: Mon Jan 14 12:02:11 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Jan-85 01:35:27 EST
References: <6995@brl-tgr.ARPA> <7004@brl-tgr.ARPA> <6847@watdaisy.UUCP> <10884@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 28

Kevin Martin proposes an initializer of the form:
> 	element = value
> e.g.
> 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.

What is the datatype of "mumble"?  Assigning mumble =  or
mumble =  should cause an error, unless  is an int
or near-relative of an int.  And then, how can mumble be used as the
initializer for baz?

-- Norman Diamond

UUCP:  {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet
ARPA:  ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

"Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."