You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository was archived by the owner on Feb 17, 2024. It is now read-only.
I'm working on a particular use case: generating stand-alone type declarations not using any user introduced type names.
This is useful in situations where you cannot keep the name-to-declaration mapping information and I think it makes the specification more consistent.
For other types this can be easily achieved just replacing the name of the type by its declaration in a recursive way.
However, if I understand the spec correctly, union types can only be introduced using type expressions involving type names.
I would like to express the same union type with a normal type declaration.
A possible syntax could be:
type: unionof:
- TypeA# ...
- TypeN
In this way I could express this RAML type 'schema':