Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: call to revolt
Message-ID: <16562@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 27 Jun 91 20:25:53 GMT
References: <992@baby.and.nl> <1991Jun27.002412.10929@tkou02.enet.dec.com> <4247@ksr.com>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 12

In article <4247@ksr.com> jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) writes:
>To accomplish exactly what this person thinks is desired requires a union,

I don't know exactly what that person thinks, if anything, but certainly a
union would not solve anything.  It would make things much worse in the
case of an implementation that represents different pointer types
differently.

The simple solution is to use a char* or void* as a "generic pointer" and
deal with the address arithmetic oneself.  This is really quite simple and
doesn't need to be hashed over in this (C standards) newsgroup.  It is not
a standards issue.