Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!att!ima!dirtydog!karl
From: karl@ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Need help with union trick: summary of replies
Message-ID: <1991Jan14.204222.7867@dirtydog.ima.isc.com>
Date: 14 Jan 91 20:42:22 GMT
References: <28949@mimsy.umd.edu> <2885@cirrusl.UUCP> <1991Jan12.190021.16071@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <14836@smoke.brl.mil> <1991Jan13.072418.1745@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Sender: news@dirtydog.ima.isc.com (NEWS ADMIN)
Organization: Interactive Systems
Lines: 24

[DEC's compiler apparently allows you to write things like
	struct {
	    variant_union { int x; float y; } superfluous;
	} str;
and write str.x to reference the components.  Doug Gwyn notes that this is
gross, nonstandard, etc.]

In article <1991Jan13.072418.1745@nntp-server.caltech.edu> gceych@juliet.caltech.edu writes:
>The piece of code of which this is a small part contains so many system
>calls, kludges, etc. that portability is not a major concern.

I'll accept your judgement on that point.

>Besides, I happen to LIKE this particular construct for nested structures and
>unions (as an option).

I like the functionality, but not the syntax.  The "anonymous union"
	struct {
	    union { int x; float y; };
	} str;
is much better.  This, too, is not part of the current ANSI C Standard, but it
stands a much better chance of being accepted into C-2001.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (karl@ima.isc.com or uunet!ima!karl), The Walking Lint