It's the kind of new feature (potentially wide impacting) that we have created Groovy Enhancement Proposals for in the past. Most recently we have just used well-fleshed out Jira issues with a GEP label.
I'm +1 for exploring the idea further but -1 for trying to implement a small piece of the feature without at least fleshing out the bigger picture. Cheers, Paul. On 24 Jul. 2017 12:14 am, "Guillaume Laforge" <[email protected]> wrote: > Many people do also like that feature :-) > And it's good to have that conversation and discussion! > > Guillaume > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:06 AM, Daniel Sun <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Because many people do not like the feature, it will not be implemented >> for >> the time being util we reach a consensus. >> >> P.S. It is actually a poll. >> >> Cheers, >> Daniel.Sun >> >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble >> .com/VOTE-About-the-Union-Type-for-method-constructor- >> declaration-tp5742265p5742283.html >> Sent from the Groovy Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > > > > -- > Guillaume Laforge > Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President > Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud Platform > > Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ > Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+ > <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts> >
