Re: %union errors that shouldn't be there

[Laurence Finston]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Hans Aberg wrote:

> They should be OK in C++, as pointers do not have non-trival
> con-/de-structors. The compiler needs to see a declaration of the
> name as a type, though, before it sees the pointer.

If I remember correctly, it has to do with the size of the objects not
being known at the time the `union' declaration is compiled.  I'm not
sure, but I think I tested this once and discovered, somewhat to my
surprise, that using pointers in the `union' didn't work, either.  When I
get a chance, I'll check this carefully.

Thanks.

Laurence