I have been converting my program, which previously used unnamed types, to use only named struct types.  However, you can't do that inside an anonymous struct or union:

    union {    // anonymous
        struct _a { ... }
        _a a;    // syntax error, "identifier '_a'  is not defined"
    }

I have to hackishly move the struct definition out of the union:
    struct _a { ... }
    union {
        _a a;
    }

Maybe we need a new keyword for "unnamed struct variable" that can work more like the old C++ style?

--
The Villagers are Online! villagersonline.com

.[ (the fox.(quick,brown)) jumped.over(the dog.lazy) ]
.[ (a version.of(English).(precise.more)) is(possible) ]
?[ you want.to(help(develop(it))) ]

It looks like a compiler bug. -Walter

"Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16@deming-os.org> wrote in message news:3D8BA059.8D4DF2A8@deming-os.org...
> I have been converting my program, which previously used unnamed types, to use only named struct types.  However, you can't do that inside an anonymous struct or union:
>
>     union {    // anonymous
>         struct _a { ... }
>         _a a;    // syntax error, "identifier '_a'  is not defined"
>     }
>
> I have to hackishly move the struct definition out of the union:
>     struct _a { ... }
>     union {
>         _a a;
>     }
>
> Maybe we need a new keyword for "unnamed struct variable" that can work more like the old C++ style?
>
> --
> The Villagers are Online! villagersonline.com
>
> .[ (the fox.(quick,brown)) jumped.over(the dog.lazy) ]
> .[ (a version.of(English).(precise.more)) is(possible) ]
> ?[ you want.to(help(develop(it))) ]
>
>