Bottom Type--Type Theory

[Dukc]

On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 at 22:32:33 UTC, Walter Bright 
wrote:
> The trouble with 'void' as a bottom type is it is only half 
> done. For example, 'void' functions are procedures, and 
> certainly do return. A void* is certainly a pointer to 
> something, not nothing. 'void' is the one with awkward corner 
> cases, it's just we're so used to them we don't see them, like 
> few C++ people recognized the identity function problem.

Isn't `void` in fact analogous to the TOP type? With a bit 
additional features, it could be used as one, as I understand it.