But maybe I'm not understanding this correctly? Was it suggested that a type union be the result of the subtypes method? I don't think that makes sense.... The subtypes of a type is a set of types, not a type (even if that type were the union of all the subtypes). It strikes me as a little odd, but I may have misheard, or there might me an interpretation of it that I haven't thought about.
On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 7:02:41 AM UTC-8, Scott Jones wrote: > > Yes! 😄 I was hoping that Jeff had implemented something super fast for > type unions.
