Union redux

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 6/2/15 1:48 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 2 June 2015 at 05:00, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>> After discussion at DConf, it ends up that union have some lack of
>> specification, and some nonsensical behavior right now. Here are some points
>> discussed and possible solutions :
>>
>> 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.
>
> Isn't it the case that some of the members of a union need to be
> declared with init =void, such that only one version of the union
> provides the init values?
> At that point, isn't the state of init clearly defined by the members
> that aren't =void?

That could be done, but strikes me as too clever for its own good. -- Andrei