Standard for union initialization?

[G|ran Uddeborg]

In article <10884 at watmath.UUCP> kpmartin at watmath.UUCP (Kevin Martin) writes:
	...
>union {
>	<type1> foo;
>	<type2> bar;
>	<type3> mumble;
>}baz = mumble = <initializer>;
>Since <initializer> can be an expression in C already, you might find that
>your compiler's grammar already allows this, and it is only detected as
>an error after further analysis.
>
>Of course, if the "element =" is absent, the first element could be
>initialized. Similarly for the implicit zeroing of un-initialized
>static storage.
>            Kevin Martin, UofW Software Development Group.


What about the ".=" operator discussed elsewhere in this group? :-)
-- 
"For me, UNIX is a way of being."  (Originally: Armando P. Stettner)

		G|ran Uddeborg
		{seismo,philabs,decvax}!mcvax!enea!chalmers!uddeborg