Union redux

[CraigDillabaugh via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 21:02:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/1/2015 12:43 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 6/1/15 12:00 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>>> 1/ .init for unions is not defined. I propose to define it as 
>>> the .init
>>> of the first field + padding with 0s if the union is larger 
>>> than its
>>> first member. It seems to be what is generated right now.
>>
>> Fine.
>
> "Fine" as in "yes" :-)
>
> For non-native speakers, the use of "fine" is often confusing. 
> "Fine" in American english means "you're wrong, but I won't 
> argue the point." It does not signify endorsement.
>
>
Maybe this explains why my wife was upset with me when she
asked how she looked and I said "Fine".

>
>>> 8/ unions and structs are mangled the same way (or so it 
>>> seems). Bug or
>>> feature ?
>>
>> Not sure. Walter?
>
> I think it's fine.
>
So are you saying you think don't think they are mangled the
same way, but that you don't want to bother arguing.

Craig