On 4/27/11, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 04/27/2011 09:36 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> A a = { 1, 2 };
>>
>> a.c is initialized to 1+0i rather than 1+2i as it has been previously,
>
> This should have said "a.c is initialized to 1+0i, as it has been
> previously, rather than 1+2i, as it would be if it were an aggregate".This looks right to me. It's more in line with C99. -- Lawrence Crowl
