I have the opposite reaction to @treeform. I think it is great that a new syntax is being proposed because I find the fact that you must manually define a "kind" type super annoying (to the point that I never use object variants). IMHO code that uses them looks much more complex than the typical nim code.
- Sum types, 2024 variant arnetheduck
- Sum types, 2024 variant Araq
- Sum types, 2024 variant FernandoTorresG
- Sum types, 2024 variant Araq
- Sum types, 2024 variant ASVI
- Sum types, 2024 variant mildred
- Sum types, 2024 variant Araq
- Sum types, 2024 variant treeform
- Sum types, 2024 variant Araq
- Sum types, 2024 variant treeform
- Sum types, 2024 variant didlybom
- Sum types, 2024 variant xigoi
- Sum types, 2024 variant blackmius
- Sum types, 2024 variant ElegantBeef
- Sum types, 2024 variant blackmius
- Sum types, 2024 variant ElegantBeef
- Sum types, 2024 variant Araq
- Sum types, 2024 variant bajith
- Sum types, 2024 variant Araq
- Sum types, 2024 variant bajith
- Sum types, 2024 variant bajith