Bottom Type--Type Theory

[Nicholas Wilson]

On Thursday, 17 January 2019 at 01:45:13 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 1/16/2019 2:59 PM, Dukc wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I think H.S. Teoh's reply helps with that. 'void' is 
> symptomatic of poor design inherited from C along with my 
> non-CS background.

OTOH, it gets us easy compatibility and familiarity.

> My interest in a bottom type comes from wanting a sounder 
> mathematical basis for types in D, but sadly nobody else seems 
> interested, and this DIP is pretty much DOA.

Its not that we're not interested, its that the DIP needs to show 
tangible practical benefits (which are low) that clearly outweigh 
the risks and costs (which are very high), and shows clear 
benefits relative to the other solutions to the problems (which 
already exist), which it doesn't.

If this DIP is DOA, how has it managed to get all the way to 
final review? It should either be dropped, or still be in draft.