groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paolo Di Tommaso <paolo.ditomm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE]About the Union Type for method/constructor declaration
Date Sun, 23 Jul 2017 15:13:33 GMT
I agree with Paul.

-1


p

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Paul King <paulk@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 <realbluesun@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.
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message