🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan25.171222.1@fnalng.fnal.gov> b91926@fnalng.fnal.gov writes:
>Does the c++ standard have anything to say about the legality of a
>construct like the following:
>
>...
>struct
>{
>  int a;
>  int b;
>};
>
>...
>
>Such an example appeared in a recent issue of "C++ Report". The
>problem with this code is that it defines absolutely nothing.

This example reminds me of a possible extension to C++ (and C)
that could occasionally be useful: anonymous structures,
which are analogous to anonymous unions.

Example:
	typedef union
		{
		unsigned long lw;
		struct { unsigned short sw0, sw1; };
		struct { unsigned char b0, b1, b2, b3; };
		}	machword;
	machword	r1, r2;

Now you can access r1.b2, instead of having to do
something like r1.b.b2, etc.

Note that the only place this would be useful
is inside a union.