I agree with Paul.
-1
p
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> 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>
> 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.
>>
>
>
