Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Cheap implementations of languages (Re: Pointers and poor implementations (was: Re: JLG's flogging ...)) Message-ID: <1=U2D08xds13@ficc.uu.net> Date: 11 Apr 90 13:52:25 GMT References: <5486@ganymede.inmos.co.uk> <14323@lambda.UUCP> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 9 In article <14323@lambda.UUCP> jlg@lambda.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes: > Equivalence is about as difficult (or easy) to implement as C's untagged > unions are. Not so. There is no requirement I'm aware of that unions actually overlap. It's legal to effectively "#define union struct". Also, even if you do have overlapping unions, C doesn't require the implementation to overlap them in any particular way. Fortran does. -- _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ 'U` \_.--._/ v