I would be leaning towards -1 without further justification. Even though I
don't think we want to rush into union types in Groovy, wouldn't this
syntax rule out us having it down the track?
Cheers, Paul.
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Daniel Sun <realblue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been thinking about Union Type for method/constructor
> declaration. It is similar to multi-catch in try-catch statement, e.g.
>
> class UnionTypeSample {
> public UnionTypeSample(A|B|C p) {
> // do something
> }
>
> def m(D|E p) {
> // do something
> }
> }
>
> Groovy will translate the above code into the following code, which
> is
> also the same way how multi-catch is handled.
>
> class UnionTypeSample {
> public UnionTypeSample(A p) {
> // do something
> }
>
> public UnionTypeSample(B p) {
> // do something
> }
>
> public UnionTypeSample(C p) {
> // do something
> }
>
> def m(D p) {
> // do something
> }
>
> def m(E p) {
> // do something
> }
> }
>
> Any thoughts?
> ----------------------------------
> [+1] I like it
> [ 0] Not bad
> [-1] I do not like it
> ----------------------------------
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.Sun
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://groovy.329449.n5.
> nabble.com/VOTE-About-the-Union-Type-for-method-constructor-declaration-
> tp5742265.html
> Sent from the Groovy Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
