Bottom Type--Type Theory

[H. S. Teoh]

On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 03:40:57AM +0000, Mike Franklin via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 January 2019 at 09:24:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> > On 1/16/2019 8:52 PM, Johannes Loher wrote:
> > > In a later post, H. S. Theo describes some of the problems with
> > > void in more detail. What is your stance on actually fixing void
> > > from a type theoretical perspective? Do you think that is
> > > practical?
> > 
> > Too much water under that bridge.
> 
> I suppose `bottom`, `top`, and `unit` types can be added to the
> language while maintaining current `void` semantics.  Then, in time,
> the uses of `void` masquerading as `bottom`, `top`, and `unit` will
> diminish to a point where it wouldn't be all that disruptive to
> deprecate it.  This just needs someone with the skill and time to
> implement it, which is probably the real blocker.
[...]

There would have to be some incentive for people to stop writing `void`
and `void*` and start writing `top*`, `bottom`, `unit`, though.
Otherwise we'll just end up with 3 more keywords that nobody uses
cluttering the language.


T

-- 
Long, long ago, the ancient Chinese invented a device that lets them see through walls. It was called the "window".