Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site plus5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!mgnetp!we53!busch!wuphys!plus5!hokey
From: hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Initialization of unions
Message-ID: <765@plus5.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 23:48:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: plus5.765
Posted: Wed Jun  5 23:48:04 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Jun-85 03:24:30 EDT
References: <477@tjalk.UUCP>
Reply-To: hokey@plus5.UUCP (Hokey)
Organization: Plus Five Computer Services, St. Louis, MO
Lines: 27

In article <477@tjalk.UUCP> dick@tjalk.UUCP (Dick Grune) writes:
>I saw a suggestion for the initialization of unions in net.lang.c
>a few months ago that I found very sensible, readable and hygienic:
>
>        union   {
>                int i;
>                float x;
>                char *str;
>        } ixstr = { , 3.14, };
>
>if you want it to start off as a float, etc.

I don't see this as sensible or readable (I'm not sure about hygienic, either).

For starters, if one has a union of many elements, the initialization string
is *huge*.  For another, if elements are added, deleted, or reordered, the
initialization string must be fixed.  Thirdly, one has to look at the
definition quite often when examining an array union initialization in order
to keep everything in perspective.

I still believe the best answer is to explicitly cast each initializer.

It sure would be nice if the net could get some additional feedback from
the Committee on this issue.
-- 
Hokey           ..ihnp4!plus5!hokey
		  314-725-9492