Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!ima!ISM780B!jim
From: jim@ISM780B.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Standard for union initialization?
Message-ID: <140@ISM780B.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Feb-85 01:38:52 EST
Article-I.D.: ISM780B.140
Posted: Sat Feb  2 01:38:52 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Feb-85 09:04:48 EST
Lines: 18
Nf-ID: #R:brl-tgr:-764700:ISM780B:25500101:000:999
Nf-From: ISM780B!jim    Jan 31 19:46:00 1985

>"Intelligent idea"??? This is just another accident waiting to happen!
>This looks ok for a nice short example like this, but frequently, the
>union's definition and initialization are far apart (and maybe in different
>source files). This makes it easy to add another union element, and
>inadvertantly screw up the initializers royally without as much as a
>peep from the compiler.

I don't disagree with your observation, but please note that the
same argument can be applied to structure initialization.  The reason that it
is a nice idea is that it is isomorphic to structure initialization, so it
fits the existing structure; it doesn't involve any new mechanism, so it fits
within the committee's conservative charter.

Arguing that C's method of structure initialization is dangerous is a totally
different discussion; come up with better ideas for structure initialization,
and you will have come up with better ideas for union initialization.

-- Jim Balter, INTERACTIVE Systems (ima!jim)