Harbison & Steele (was: Re: Bitfields in unions)

[M. J. Saltzman]

In article <72969 at brunix.UUCP> gvr at cs.brown.edu (George V. Reilly) writes:
>In article <680 at taumet.com> steve at taumet.com (Stephen Clamage) writes:
>+ The ANSI C standard says explicitly that a union may contain a bitfield.
>
>Well, that's another thing that Harbison & Steele III have got wrong,
>then.  On p. 128, it says:
>	The syntax for defining components [in unions] is the same
>	as that used for structures, except that bit fields are
>	not permitted in unions.

Sorry to bother you all, but does anyone have a list of errata for
H&S?  Is it really that bad?  Are there any other good references
(short of the standard itself) for day-to-day use?

E-mail is fine, I don't want to take up more bandwidth than I already
have.

Thanks very much.

		Matthew Saltzman
		mjs at clemson.edu