2 posts
Compound literals for unions are clumsy
Edited by yanok on
It's really strange that we need to provide all the fields to create the union. Isn't it the whole point behind unions that only one of the fields is actually needed?
Per Vognsen
49 posts / 1 project
Compound literals for unions are clumsy
Edited by Per Vognsen on
You don't need to provide all the fields. Fewer will do, with implied zero padding, as in C. But yes, since right now I haven't implemented named fields for compound literals, union compound literals are not terribly useful. It's not a reflection of a language issue, just the fact that named fields for compound literals haven't been implemented. I'll do it right now...
Per Vognsen
49 posts / 1 project
Compound literals for unions are clumsy
Edited by Per Vognsen on
OK, just checked it in, though it's only received some light testing.

https://github.com/pervognsen/bit...211f0181e16397e3205e9782f2acfaf20

You can now do stuff like this and it properly type checks:

 1 2 3 4 union IntOrPtr { i: int; p: int*; } var u1 = IntOrPtr{i = 42} var u2 = IntOrPtr{p = cast(int*, 42)} var a: int[256] = {1, 2, ['a'] = 3} 

Thanks for the prod. :)
2 posts
Compound literals for unions are clumsy
Cool! Thanks!