Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pjc50 115 days ago
OK then, what is the opposite of this, the adhoc union?
2 comments

I don’t know for sure, but I’m guessing something like

(Dog, Cat) pet = new Cat();

So without defining the union with an explicit name beforehand.

Well, you can do this in c#:

  var someUser = new { Name = "SideburnsOfDoom", CommentValue = 3 };

What type is `someUser` ? Not one that you can reference by name in code, it is "anonymous" in that regard. But the compiler knows the type.

A type can be given at compile-time in a declaration, or generated at compile-time by the compiler like this. But it is still "Compiler-verified" and not ad-hoc or at runtime.

the type (Dog, Cat) pet seems similar, it's known at compile-time and won't change. A type without a usable name is still a type.

Is this "ad-hoc"? It depends entirely on what you mean by that.

I don't follow the question. Maybe define the term that you are using?
Top comment mentioned the term without defining it, confusing me and seemingly most of the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47649817
We seem to have yet another potential meaning here : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47692261

> Cat, Dog and Bird don't have to inherit from the union, you can declare a union of completely random types, as opposed to saying "Animal has three subtypes, no more, no less"

"Animal has three subtypes" is more like the c# "sealed" modifier on a class, meaning that subtyping is not allowed. Except in this case I guess for three existing subtypes.