[roflcopter69]

Hi! Love to see that C# language designers are here on HN :)

Just wanted to add just another opinion on a few things.

I think many people already mentioned it, but I also don't feel to good about non-boxed unions not being the default. I'd personally like the path of least resistance to lead to not boxing. Having to opt-in like the current preview shows it looks like a PITA that I'd quickly become tired of.

Also, ad-hoc union types could be really nice. At least in Python those are really nice, stuff like `def foo(x: str | int)` is just very nice. If I had to first give this union type a name I'd enjoy it way less.

But I'm aware that you are trying your best to find a good trade-off and I'm sure I don't know all the implications of the things I wish you'd do. But I just wanted to mention those to have another data point you can weigh into your decision process.

[Metasyntactic]

> Having to opt-in like the current preview shows it looks like a PITA that I'd quickly become tired of.

My belief is that we will have a `union struct` just like we have `record` and `record struct`. Where you can simply say you want value-type, non-boxing, behavior by adding the `struct` keyword. This feels very nice to me, and in line with how we've treated other similar types. You'll only have to state this on the decl point, so for each union type it's one and done.

[roflcopter69]

That actually sounds like a promising idea. Thanks for putting so much thought into this.

[jsmith45]

> I think many people already mentioned it, but I also don't feel to good about non-boxed unions not being the default. I'd personally like the path of least resistance to lead to not boxing. Having to opt-in like the current preview shows it looks like a PITA that I'd quickly become tired of.

The problem is that the only safe way for the compiler to generate non-boxed unions would require non-overlapping fields for most value types.

Specifically the CLR has a hard rule that it must know with certainty where all managed pointers are at all times, so that the GC can update them if it moves the referenced object. This means you can only overlap value types if the locations of all managed pointers line up perfectly. So sure, you can safely overlap "unmanaged" structs (those that recursively don't contain any managed pointers), but even for those, you need to know the size of the largest one.

The big problem with the compiler doing any attempt to overlap value types is that if the value types as defined at compile time may not match the definitions at runtime, especially for types defined in another assembly. A new library version can add more fields. This may mean one unmanaged struct has become too big to fit in the field, or that two types that were previously overlap compatible are not anymore.

Making the C# compiler jump though a bunch of hoops to try to determine if overlapping is safe and even then leaving room for an updated library at runtime to crash the whole things means that the compiler will probably never even try. I guess the primitive numeric types could be special cased, as their size is known and will never change.