Darren Duncan wrote:
> To follow-up, an additional feature that would be useful and resembles union
> types is the variant where you could declare a union type first and then
> separately other types could declare they are a member of the union. I'm
> talking about loosely what mixins or type-roles or interfaces etc are in other
> languages. The most trivial example would be declaring an ENUM-alike first and
> then separately declaring the component values where the latter declare they are
> part of the ENUM, and this could make it easier to add or change ENUM values.
> But keep in mind that this is a distinct concept from what we're otherwise
> talking about as being union types. -- Darren Duncan
Should this be a TODO item?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +