← Back to index

Compound literals for unions are clumsy

yanok
#14744
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?
Edited by yanok on
Per Vognsen
#14745
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...
Edited by Per Vognsen on
Per Vognsen
#14746
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. :)
Edited by Per Vognsen on
yanok
#14747
Cool! Thanks!
Reply to Thread
← Back to index