Re: %union errors that shouldn't be there

[Hans Aberg]

At 19:34 +0100 2005/03/23, Laurence Finston wrote:

>  > One would need to
> >  be aware that the C++ unions
>
> The rest of this sentence was missing.

If one adds such semantics to the C++ union, one needs to be aware of 
that it differs from that of the C union. I think this should be 
without problem, as one cannot only mix the two languages using 
'extern "C"' linkage from C++ for functions only. Perhaps there is a 
problem if the function has a C union as an argument. But then it 
does not have any non-trivial constructors to keep track of. So 
perhaps it works.
--
  Hans Aberg