+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 in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion. On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote: > 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 feature without at least fleshing out the bigger picture. > > Cheers, Paul. > > > On 24 Jul. 2017 12:14 am, "Guillaume Laforge" <glafo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 <realblue...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Because many people do not like the feature, it will not be implemented >>> for >>> the time being util we reach a consensus. >>> >>> P.S. It is actually a poll. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Daniel.Sun >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble >>> .com/VOTE-About-the-Union-Type-for-method-constructor-declar >>> ation-tp5742265p5742283.html >>> Sent from the Groovy Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Guillaume Laforge >> Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President >> Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud Platform >> >> Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ >> Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+ >> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts> >> >
