I agree.
Mark Slee wrote: > Oh, but to the original question about unions, that sounds pretty handy, and > probably a pretty common use case. Basically just syntactic sugar for the > "all-optional-only-one-present" case. That's definitely the kind of code > that can and should be generated, IMO. Go for it. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ted Dunning" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 6:50 PM > Subject: Re: Addition of union type > > >> It seems pretty reasonable and not all that hard. If you got all >> ambitious, >> you could rewrite the entire compiler to allow forward references and we >> would suddenly have recursive data structures! >> >> (or not) >> >> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Bryan Duxbury <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> What do people think about this idea? If we like it we can start to flesh >>> it out some more and then open a ticket to get implementations going. >> >> >> >> -- >> Ted Dunning, CTO >> DeepDyve >> >
