Anonymous unions 
Author Message
 Anonymous unions

Greetings, all.

Does anyone know if the new C9X permits anonymous unions, as C++ does?
I did a "grep anonymous" on and a quick skim through my draft copy but
it didn't turn up anything... either my copy is out of date, anonymous
unions in C++ aren't called anonymous unions in C9X, or they're simply
not supported.

(In case you all don't have a clue what I'm talking about, an anonymous
union does not have a type name and may not be instantiated.  Declaring
such a union tells the compiler that its members will share the same
memory; however, its members ostensibly act like regular variables and
are accessed directly rather than via dot operator qualification.)

Regards,
Psy
http://www.*-*-*.com/

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.*-*-*.com/ The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!



Thu, 23 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Anonymous unions

Quote:

> Does anyone know if the new C9X permits anonymous unions, as C++ does?

i don't think it does.  i don't know for sure.

--
              /"\                              m i k e    b u r r e l l

               X        AGAINST HTML MAIL      http://mikpos.dyndns.org
              / \



Fri, 24 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Anonymous unions
As far as I know C9X will include anonymous unions.
Sorry, this is contradictory to what Mike has just said! I heard this
fact some time ago on this group, so I can't say for definite (i.e. I dont
have the standard in front of me) but this is what I have seen / heard.

James.

--
Please remove "NOSPAM" from the front of my mail address.

Quote:

>Greetings, all.

>Does anyone know if the new C9X permits anonymous unions, as C++ does?
>I did a "grep anonymous" on and a quick skim through my draft copy but
>it didn't turn up anything... either my copy is out of date, anonymous
>unions in C++ aren't called anonymous unions in C9X, or they're simply
>not supported.

>(In case you all don't have a clue what I'm talking about, an anonymous
>union does not have a type name and may not be instantiated.  Declaring
>such a union tells the compiler that its members will share the same
>memory; however, its members ostensibly act like regular variables and
>are accessed directly rather than via dot operator qualification.)

>Regards,
>Psy
>http://www.nothingisreal.com

>* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network
*
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!



Fri, 24 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 Anonymous unions


Quote:
>As far as I know C9X will include anonymous unions.

I an almost certain that it doesn't.

Quote:
>Sorry, this is contradictory to what Mike has just said! I heard this
>fact some time ago on this group, so I can't say for definite (i.e. I dont
>have the standard in front of me) but this is what I have seen / heard.

I've seen it discussed in comp.std.c but it didn't make it into the
standard AFAIK.

--
-----------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------



Sun, 26 May 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 4 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Anonymous union in VC++ 7

2. about "anonymous union" problem

3. Anonymous unions in C with gcc?

4. Anonymous unions in gcc

5. anonymous structs and unions : legal?

6. Help: BC5 anonymous structures, unions

7. Power of Unions ( surely union in C )

8. Anonymous object ??

9. anonymous struct

10. anonymous methods

11. anonymous functions in c

12. A Jazzy NULL, and ctors for Anonymous Classes

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software