Returning a union doesn't make sense to me either. On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Ray Toal <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > >
