bottom type as parameter or local variable, does that make sense?

[Max Samukha]

On Saturday, 15 January 2022 at 14:43:14 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
>
> Making initialization of `noreturn` fail at runtime would 
> require *two* special cases: first, the special case of 
> `noreturn` having no values when every other type in D has at 
> least one value;

noreturn is no more special than 0 number or empty set. They are 
special cases of the right kind. Divide by zero fails at runtime, 
but removing 0 because of that would be a bad idea.

> and second, the special case of `noreturn`'s default 
> initializer not evaluating to a `noreturn` value when every 
> other type's default initializer evaluates to a value of that 
> type.

I think noreturn.init can be viewed as a value of noreturn.

> There is an argument to be made that we should never have 
> accepted special case #1 in the first place (i.e., that the 
> `noreturn` DIP should have been rejected). But given that we 
> have, I think it is better to accept the consequences that 
> follow from that decision, strange though they may seem, than 
> to introduce even more special cases to try and paper over them.

I am not convinced that your special case is better than mine. )