groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>
Subject Re: [VOTE]About the Union Type for method/constructor declaration
Date Sat, 22 Jul 2017 23:50:04 GMT
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