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. Pallas 
Newsgroups: 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
-------