# Syntactic sugar for types

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/syntactic-sugar-for-types/119685>\
**Category:** General Usage\
**Created:** [September 21, 2024, 10:09pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/syntactic-sugar-for-types/119685 "2024-09-21T22:09:27Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jar1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c0e974/32.png) [@jar1](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/jar1)\
**Post date:** [September 21, 2024, 10:35pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/syntactic-sugar-for-types/119685/4 "2024-09-21T22:35:52Z")

</div>

Check this thread

> [@Proposed alias for union types](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/proposed-alias-for-union-types/108205):
>
> The | character is used in a few different languages as a concise way to specify type unions, like in TypeScript, Scala, PHP 8+, Python 3.10+, and (sort of) Haskell. I was curious to hear what people’s initial thoughts would be on having this as a concise way to create Unions. This would be completely backwards-compatible of course; Union by itself would still be Union. Currently | is used for OR, which has close connections to type unions in formal logic (h/t @mkitti in [this](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/proposed-alias-for-union-types/108205/80)). Because of this …

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/syntactic-sugar-for-types/119685)._