Going by Jeff's JuliaCon 2015 talk, and the code in examples/JuliaTypes.jl, I think returning the subtypes as a set of types (which is the same as a union of types) makes perfect sense. I'm hoping that this change does make it into 0.5, I think it does clean up a lot of bad corner cases in the current type system (which Jeff also mentioned in his talk)
On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 5:45:51 PM UTC-5, Ray Toal 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. > >
