On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Matthieu Monsch <mon...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > + For unions, we will add an optional catch-all attribute to mark a branch as > resolution target when no names or aliases match (and come up with the > corresponding syntax).
Can this be compatible? If you add a new union syntax (e.g.,
{"type":"union", "branches":[...], "default":...}) then existing
implementations will not be able to read new data that uses this
feature.
Doug
