Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsrd!mcdaniel
From: mcdaniel@uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: making it easier to use unions
Message-ID: <19600002@uicsrd>
Date: Sun, 6-Jul-86 21:14:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uicsrd.19600002
Posted: Sun Jul  6 21:14:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 10-Jul-86 01:49:12 EDT
References: <1725@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Lines: 32
Nf-ID: #R:brl-smoke.ARPA:1725:uicsrd:19600002:000:833
Nf-From: uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU!mcdaniel    Jul  6 20:14:00 1986


C++ permits "anonymous unions" like
	struct {
		union {
			int x;
			char * y;
		};
		int z;
	} zap;
so
	zap.z = zap.x;
is legal.  I don't find it confusing.  [I think that anonymous structs
should likewise be permitted in C++ -- which is outside the scope of C.]

In such a case, I would say
	struct {		/* or union if appropriate */
		int x;
		char * y;
	};
	int z;
outside another struct/float would likewise define 3 external
variables named x, y, and z.

Anonymous structs could thus be described as only for purposes of
grouping (like parentheses) but do not affect scope; all identifiers
declared therein are "exported" to the next scope out, whatever it may
be.

Anonymous unions would be for grouping and for storage overlay.

As for C:  probably too late to add anonymity.  Anonymous is a lousy
keyword:  too hard to speel.