The issue i see about making anonymous structs/classes standard, is that
now something as confusing as this could be allowed:

// on the global namespace...
struct
{
int x;
};

void foo()
{
    .x = 42;
    // what? so x is some kind of weird SDM/global now?
    // what is its lifetime?
}

El jue, 7 mar 2024 a las 23:17, Sebastian Wittmeier via Std-Proposals (<
std-proposals_at_[hidden]>) escribió:

> Dear Veronica,
>
> what about your mentioned alternative of anonymous unions and structs?
>
> They could be made standard-compliant.
>
> And would need less language changes.
>
>
>
> Would they have problems with UB due to which element is the active one?
> When used in your use case?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sebastian
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> *Von:* veronica alphonso via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]
> >
> *Gesendet:* Do 07.03.2024 23:55
> *Betreff:* [std-proposals] Subscript aliasing
> *An:* std-proposals_at_[hidden];
> *CC:* veronica alphonso <verodeving_at_[hidden]>;
> In C++ there isn't a standard-compliant way of creating named aliases of
> c-like array elements. In certain contexts, it is preferred to access these
> these array elements with a named identifier that is bounded to that
> particular array entry, e.g:
>
> union
> {
> float my_vec[3];
> struct
> {
> float x, y, z;
> };
> };
>
> However, anonymous structs/classes are only
>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>