Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site chalmers.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!enea!chalmers!uddeborg
From: uddeborg@chalmers.UUCP (G|ran Uddeborg)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Standard for union initialization?
Message-ID: <177@chalmers.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 17:50:18 EST
Article-I.D.: chalmers.177
Posted: Wed Jan 16 17:50:18 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jan-85 01:22:00 EST
References: <6995@brl-tgr.ARPA> <7004@brl-tgr.ARPA> <6847@watdaisy.UUCP> <10884@watmath.UUCP>
Reply-To: uddeborg@chalmers.UUCP (G|ran uddeborg)
Organization: Dept. of CS, Chalmers, Sweden
Lines: 23
Summary: 

In article <10884@watmath.UUCP> kpmartin@watmath.UUCP (Kevin Martin) writes:
	...
>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.
>            Kevin Martin, UofW Software Development Group.


What about the ".=" operator discussed elsewhere in this group? :-)
-- 
"For me, UNIX is a way of being."  (Originally: Armando P. Stettner)

		G|ran Uddeborg
		{seismo,philabs,decvax}!mcvax!enea!chalmers!uddeborg