> On 16 May 2016, at 11:17, Austin Zheng via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > If A, B, and C are not related via protocol or class inheritance, then there > is almost nothing you can do with value. Otherwise you still need to test > against the concrete type using a case statement or a if-else ladder.
I think that a case statement or similar syntax will still be needed, and the case names would just be the types themselves. This would work best with support for type-narrowing, for example: func someMethod(value:(A|B|C)) { switch (value) { case .A: value.someMethodForTypeA() case .B: value.someMethodForTypeB() case .C: value.someMethodForTypeC() } } A union should really just be though of as a lightweight, restricted form of enum that can be declared in a quick ad-hoc fashion, similar to how tuples are a simpler form of struct. I’m generally a +1 for the feature, but I’d be interested to hear about how well equipped the compiler is for optimising something like this. In most cases an Optional covers what I need, and in more complex cases I’d probably declare overloads for each type (i.e- someMethod(value:A), someMethod(value:B) etc.); unions could make the latter case simpler, but will the compiler produce the same code behind the scenes, i.e- by isolating what’s unique to each type? _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution