Re: [VOTE]About the Union Type for method/constructor declaration

+1 to Paul's approach https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMNvOtQFro0 --- Java Champion; Groovy Enthusiast http://andresalmiray.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/aalmiray -- What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator. There are 10 types of people

Re: [VOTE]About the Union Type for method/constructor declaration

It's the kind of new feature (potentially wide impacting) that we have created Groovy Enhancement Proposals for in the past. Most recently we have just used well-fleshed out Jira issues with a GEP label. I'm +1 for exploring the idea further but -1 for trying to implement a small piece of the

Re: [VOTE]About the Union Type for method/constructor declaration

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote: > > On 23.07.2017 17:21, Guillaume Laforge wrote: > [...] > >> Speaking of pattern matching, there's Brian Goetz' proposal here, for >> pattern matching for Java: >>

Re: [VOTE]About the Union Type for method/constructor declaration

On 23.07.2017 17:21, Guillaume Laforge wrote: [...] Speaking of pattern matching, there's Brian Goetz' proposal here, for pattern matching for Java: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~briangoetz/amber/pattern-match.html We should also avoid offering a different syntax as to what might come up in the

Re: [VOTE]About the Union Type for method/constructor declaration

Many people do also like that feature :-) And it's good to have that conversation and discussion! Guillaume On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:06 AM, Daniel Sun wrote: > Because many people do not like the feature, it will not be implemented for > the time being util we reach a