After watching the video: *Jeff Bezanzon: Julia - The base language, future directions and speculations <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUP3cSKb8sI> *as Scott mentions, returning a Union type indeed starts to make sense to me.
El s谩bado, 2 de enero de 2016, 13:09:43 (UTC-6), Scott Jones escribi贸: > > Going by Jeff's JuliaCon 2015 talk, and the code in > examples/JuliaTypes.jl, I think returning the subtypes as a set of types > (which is the same as a union of types) makes perfect sense. > I'm hoping that this change does make it into 0.5, I think it does clean > up a lot of bad corner cases in the current type system (which Jeff also > mentioned in his talk) > > On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 5:45:51 PM UTC-5, Ray Toal wrote: >> >> But maybe I'm not understanding this correctly? Was it suggested that a >> type union be the result of the subtypes method? I don't think that makes >> sense.... The subtypes of a type is a set of types, not a type (even if >> that type were the union of all the subtypes). It strikes me as a little >> odd, but I may have misheard, or there might me an interpretation of it >> that I haven't thought about. >> >> On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 7:02:41 AM UTC-8, Scott Jones wrote: >>> >>> Yes! 馃槃 I was hoping that Jeff had implemented something super fast for >>> type unions. >> >>
