On Mon, 17 May 2021 at 15:17, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote:
> On the reflection front, am I correct that we'd end up with: > > abstract ReflectionType > -- ReflectionNamedType (single type) > -- ReflectionUnionType (basically an array of named types) > -- ReflectionIntersectionType (basically an array of named types) > > Where ReflectionUnionType and ReflectionIntersectionType are basically the > same API to decompose further. And should combined intersection/union > types be added in the future, the impact would be that their getTypes() > methods would return an array of some combination of ReflectionTypes, > whereas right now you could rely on them being ReflectioNamedType. (But > that also means one could build ahead for that already with a little > recursion.) > > Am I following that correctly? > > --Larry Garfield > This is indeed correct. George P. Banyard
