+1 to Paul's approach


Java Champion; Groovy Enthusiast
What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator.
There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Paul King <paulk@asert.com.au> wrote:
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" <glaforge@gmail.com> wrote:
Many people do also like that feature :-)
And it's good to have that conversation and discussion!


On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:06 AM, Daniel Sun <realbluesun@hotmail.com> 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.


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