Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:7331 comp.arch:21939
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!mucs!chl
From: chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Algol68
Message-ID: <chl.671105965@m1>
Date: 8 Apr 91 10:19:25 GMT
References: <9168@castle.ed.ac.uk> <4202@zaphod.UUCP> <801@taniwha.UUCP> <4217@zaphod.UUCP> <809@taniwha.UUCP>
Followup-To: comp.lang.misc
Organization: Dept. Of Comp Sci, Univ. of Manchester, UK.
Lines: 18

In <809@taniwha.UUCP> paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) writes:

>PS: for those who don't know even the revised report contains ambiguity,
>the most common example is:

>	union([]int , struct (int a, b, c)) fred = (1,2,3);

Not so. For this to be allowed, "(1,2,3)" would have to be a
	strong-UNITED-unit		[4.4.1.c,d,5.2.1.c]
where 'UNITED' is the particular union in question.
This, in turn, would have to be a
	strong-UNITED-ENCLOSED-clause	[3.2.1.d,5.1.A,B,C,D]
or, more specifically, a
	strong-UNITED-collateral-clause	[1.2.2.A]
BUT, there is no such animal		[3.3.1.d,e]

The point is that ENCLOSED-clauses cannot be coerced (you can only coerce
the things inside them).