DIP 1017--Add Bottom Type--Final Review

[Olivier FAURE]

On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 at 10:25:21 UTC, Walter Bright 
wrote:
> The name was never the point of the DIP.

Agreed, the type name is bikeshedding.

What is your answer to the rebuttal, common in both this thread 
and the previous thread, that a bottom type has no practical use 
justifying the complexity (and probable corner cases) it would 
add to the type system?

In particular, I think this question from Jonathan Marler really 
needs to be answered before the DIP moves forward:

> What else does the new bottom type give us?  And be sure to 
> distinguish between things that only require "no-return" 
> functions and things that require a bottom type.  If they only 
> require "no-return" functions, then they are not rationale for 
> adding a bottom type.

I mean, this is clearly the biggest point of contention. If the 
DIP is forwarded and implemented without addressing it (like it 
has been so far), then it's basically saying that the DIP process 
is a formality and the gathered feedback doesn't matter.