# Proposed alias for union types

**URL:** https://discourse.julialang.org/t/proposed-alias-for-union-types/108205
**Category:** Internals & Design
**Tags:** question, proposal
**Created:** [December 31, 2023, 1:43pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/proposed-alias-for-union-types/108205 "2023-12-31T13:43:56Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 17

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![stevengj](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/stevengj/32/71_2.png) [@stevengj](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/stevengj)
#### Post date: [January 1, 2024, 4:40pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/proposed-alias-for-union-types/108205/17 "2024-01-01T16:40:15Z")

</div>

> [@MilesCranmer](#):
>
> I think it’s elegant and was curious to hear what people’s initial thoughts would be on having this as a concise form of `Union{...}` in a future version of Julia.

Arguably, [PSA: Julia is not at that stage of development anymore](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/psa-julia-is-not-at-that-stage-of-development-anymore/44872) applies here. `Union{...}` has been a basic part of Julia’s syntax for more than 10 years now, is explicit and reasonably concise, and doesn’t seem to have been a major point of difficulty (no one has even aired a desire for an alternate syntax to my knowledge?). Adding an alternate syntax (especially if it involves changing operator precedence!) is probably not realistically on the table, even though it can be fun to think about.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/proposed-alias-for-union-types/108205)._