Discriminated unions are a hard feature to put into a mature language that already has other features in a similar space - I mean enums and class hierarchies. (.e.g. if your union is "Cat or Dog", then in OO terms they have a common base class "Animal" ). How does it play with records, structs, generics, etc etc.
That is why although they are much requested, none of the proposals that I have seen are simple to understand or easy to implement, and thus are proceeding slowly.
I don't really see Discriminated union as being in "competition" with "a?.b = c" as that's a "quick win" extension to previous ?. and ?? syntax. It's not even close to being of the same magnitude.
I would settle for a good built-in Result<T, E> type, so that people don't roll their own crappy ones, or use various opinionated but incompatible libraries.
alt Hacker News
Discriminated unions are a hard feature to put into a mature language that already has other features in a similar space - I mean enums and class hierarchies. (.e.g. if your union is "Cat or Dog", then in OO terms they have a common base class "Animal" ). How does it play with records, structs, generics, etc etc.
That is why although they are much requested, none of the proposals that I have seen are simple to understand or easy to implement, and thus are proceeding slowly.
I don't really see Discriminated union as being in "competition" with "a?.b = c" as that's a "quick win" extension to previous ?. and ?? syntax. It's not even close to being of the same magnitude.
I would settle for a good built-in Result<T, E> type, so that people don't roll their own crappy ones, or use various opinionated but incompatible libraries.