union question

[Luca]

do you know if there is some upper bound on the number of members that
can be contained in a union?

[Gianni Mariani]

Luca wrote:

do you know if there is some upper bound on the number of members that
can be contained in a union?

Why do you ask ?

It's probably implementation dependant.

[Andew Curzon]

Apart from the usual retrictions in C++ i.e. no static variables (in
unions), no virtual member functions (in unions), no overloading the =
operator, there is no direct reference in Herb Schildt's manual to any
"upper bound".

Try it yourself and see what happens
Andrew Curzon (UK, C++ Programmer)

"Gianni Mariani" <gi*******@mariani.ws> wrote in message
news:bi********@dispatch.concentric.net...

Luca wrote:

do you know if there is some upper bound on the number of members that
can be contained in a union?

Why do you ask ?

It's probably implementation dependant.

[Ron Natalie]

"Andew Curzon" <an************@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:FA******************@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...

Apart from the usual retrictions in C++ i.e. no static variables (in
unions), no virtual member functions (in unions), no overloading the =
operator, there is no direct reference in Herb Schildt's manual to any
"upper bound".

Fortunately nobody implements a compiler to Schildt's recommendations.
The standard doesn't require that there be either a maximum or minimum
number of union elements supported, but suggests 4096 as the minimum
the implementation su pport.