# 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:** 23

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MilesCranmer](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/milescranmer/32/21070_2.png) [@MilesCranmer](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/MilesCranmer)\
**Post date:** [January 1, 2024, 7:23pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/proposed-alias-for-union-types/108205/23 "2024-01-01T19:23:38Z")

</div>

> [@stevengj](#):
>
> It’s been 11 years since the release of Julia 0.1 — my point is that this being the first time someone has even voiced a desire for a more concise `Union` syntax is not exactly evidence of a burning need.

I can confess that the only reason I considered this idea at all (and thus why I started this thread) was because I started noticing this syntax more and more frequently in Python libraries.

It doesn’t seem unusual to me that it hasn’t been thought of until now… that’s just how languages evolve, by cross-breeding and mutating ideas in a larger ecosystem of other languages. And this syntax has only recently started becoming a dominant species.

---

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