home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: access1.digex.net!not-for-mail
- From: ell@access1.digex.net (Ell)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c,comp.object,comp.software-eng
- Subject: Re: Beware of "C" Hackers -- A rebuttal to Bertrand Meyer
- Followup-To: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c,comp.object,comp.software-eng
- Date: 20 Mar 1996 03:28:40 GMT
- Organization: The Universe
- Message-ID: <4inu18$eet@news4.digex.net>
- References: <1995Jul3.034108.4193@rcmcon.com> <3taaha$p8j@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4il72s$ena@news4.digex.net> <4imrvfINNqjo@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
- X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
-
- Kazimir Kylheku (c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca) wrote:
- :...
- : Or do you mean by ``liberal use of unions'' a violation whereby one type is
- : written in the union and read through another? This calls for undefined
- : behavior.
-
- Yes this is what I was thinking of. But the key thing is, unions are not
- bad pe se. It is just that for large and complex projects at least, they
- should, imo, be used in the context of appropriate abstraction and system
- architecture, however these are modified by feedback.
-
- Elliott
-