groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE]About the Union Type for method/constructor declaration
Date Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:04:08 GMT


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 JDK later on, to avoid having two distinct syntaxes for the
> same thing.
> (although this proposal doesn't cover union types per se, it's something
> to factor in, in our decisions)

I see one possible influence depending if we can declare a sum type or 
not. Because if you can really declare one (and I really think you will 
want to do that), you will potentially use it in a switch-case. That 
will open a lot of problems

bye Jochen

Mime
View raw message