Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!mintaka!olivea!oliveb!pyramid!voder!apple!sun-barr!rutgers!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: C's sins of commission (was: (pssst...fortran?))
Message-ID: <&3646@lanl.gov>
Date: 21 Sep 90 00:05:27 GMT
References: <9009202211.AA15218@encore.encore.com>
Organization: Los Alamos Natl Lab, Los Alamos, N.M.
Lines: 27

From article <9009202211.AA15218@encore.encore.com>, by pmorris@BBN.COM (Phil Morris):
> [...]
|> How about something as simple as:
|>
|> #define SZLONG sizeof(long)
|>
|>       union xxx {
|>               long word;
|>               char str[SZLONG];
|>       } un;
|>
|>       un.word = '1234';
|>       printf("%c %c %c %c\n", un.str[0], un.str[1], un.str[2], un.str[3]);
|>
|>
|> It works on my machine, and the hypothetical language under discussion can handle these
|> constructs (except he didn't mention how to do sizeof(xxx)).


Actually, I prefer sizeof() to be measured in bits, not bytes.  And
I prefer 'union' to be non-storage order dependent.  I actually prefer
the use of 'mapping' declarations (such as I described in the first
article I posted with this title).  Other than that, your solution
is mech like the one I sent via email to the person who posted the
problem.

J. Giles