Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!hsdndev!spdcc!ima!dirtydog!karl From: karl@ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: union or type casting, which to use? Message-ID: <1990Dec02.231041.8281@dirtydog.ima.isc.com> Date: 2 Dec 90 23:10:41 GMT References: <9011271554.AA23331@bisco.kodak.COM> <28080@mimsy.umd.edu> Sender: news@dirtydog.ima.isc.com (NEWS ADMIN) Reply-To: karl@ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) Organization: Interactive Systems Lines: 15 In article pds@lemming.webo.dg.com (Paul D. Smith) writes: >Bummer. Too bad ANSI couldn't come up with some more syntax for >initializing unions ... More precisely, it's too bad that a better syntax, such as my proposal for labeled initializers (posted to alt.lang.cfutures not too long ago and now in the hands of GNU) wasn't already existing practice at the time when it could have made a difference. I think it's a much better solution than the kludge X3J11 had to invent. X3J11 wasn't particularly interested in making it possible to initialize unions. They just wanted to have a rule that would make uninitialized static-duration unions have a well-defined value. Karl W. Z. Heuer (karl@ima.isc.com or uunet!ima!karl), The Walking Lint Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com