🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <chl.671105965@m1> chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes:
>In <809@taniwha.UUCP> paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) writes:
>
>>	union([]int , struct (int a, b, c)) fred = (1,2,3);
>
>Not so. For this to be allowed, "(1,2,3)" would have to be a
>	strong-UNITED-unit		[4.4.1.c,d,5.2.1.c]
>where 'UNITED' is the particular union in question.
>This, in turn, would have to be a
>	strong-UNITED-ENCLOSED-clause	[3.2.1.d,5.1.A,B,C,D]
>or, more specifically, a
>	strong-UNITED-collateral-clause	[1.2.2.A]
>BUT, there is no such animal		[3.3.1.d,e]
>
>The point is that ENCLOSED-clauses cannot be coerced (you can only coerce
>the things inside them).

OK, I'm beat :-) I finally figured out where this happens - it's really 
because:

	PRIMARY:: ENCLOSED clause [5D]

rather than:

	PRIMARY:: ENCOLSED clause coercee

(all the other productions in this section end in coercee). 

Early on while I was working on my compiler I read someone describe this
as being aproblem with the report, when I got to that part of the compiler
(coercing displays etc) it all seemed to make sense.

So how do you initialise a union with a row display?? Do you have to put
it in a temporary variable first?? ugh


	Paul

-- 
Paul Campbell    UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul     AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P

"But don't we all deserve.
 More than a kinder and gentler fuck" - Two Nice Girls, "For the Inauguration"