Since this feature would have been helpful to me on several occasions
(avoiding to have to introduce an interface or go dynamic) I would
tentatively have said +1.
Tentatively, because I am at the same time worried that a feature like
that could prevent framework developers from introducing a meaningful
interface hierarchy, over time possibly leading to code like
void
doGenericStuff(DeviceManager|VerySpecializedClassWithLongName|TautologicalFluxCompensatorMatrixElement|KungFooMaster
x) { ... }
On the other hand, IDE refactoring support could allow for automatic
extraction of a shared functionality interface between the given classes
here...
I would also have thought of the exact same syntax - can you explain why
you think it would break future extensions, Paul ?
mg
On 23.07.2017 01:50, Paul King wrote:
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
<mailto: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
<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.
