Re: [VOTE] Catching Multiple Exception Types

Hi! > catch constitutes a formal signature, exactly like a function signature. In > my mind, this proposal and the union types proposal are intrinsically tied. > If we have one, we must have the other. If not, we're inducing a sadness. This has nothing to do with union types. It is just a shortcut for repeated catch() clauses, it does not introduce anything into type system, capture existing use case, and doesn't make anything more complicated. While union types introduce a lot of new things, make everything dealing with types more complicated and the need for them, unless we import a real lot of other concepts like type pattern matching is quite unclear. So I don't think this has much in common. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com