On 2 June 2015 at 05:00, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> 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?
