[Nickle] Should I expect this?

[Bart Massey]

Thanks!

Note that the syntax for initializing an object consisting
of nested unions is still quite ugly (although much improved
over previous options):

  typedef union {  int ux; union { int uux, uuy; } uy; } u;
  u v = { uy = { uux = 3 } };

I wish I had a suggestion here.

	Bart

In message <E18973T-00030O-00@localhost> you wrote:
> 
> Around 23 o'clock on Nov 4, Bart Massey wrote:
> 
> >   <stdin>:2: Initializer type mismatch, type 'union { int x; int y; }'
> > 
> > It seems like this ought to work to me.  Am I confused?
> 
> The {} initializers were only for structs and arrays.  But, it's 
> reasonable to use them for unions as well; the alternative is to use the
> union constant syntax instead:
> 
> > typedef union {int x, y;} u;
> > u v = (u.x) 3;
> 
> That duplicates the typename, which is bad.
> 
> I've changed the compiler to permit union initialization with {} syntax.
> 
> -keith
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nickle mailing list
> Nickle@nickle.org
> http://nickle.org/mailman/listinfo/nickle
>