On Sunday, 9 July 2017 at 13:13:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/9/17 1:36 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
If we wanted to be cute we could use `typeof()` to represent
this type as there is no value you can give to typeof such
that it returns the bottom type. It also avoids having to
come up with some special symbol or name for it.
That is indeed an interesting idea. Thanks!
We should use typeof(assert(0)) for Bottom. There is precedent
- there is no name for typeof(null). -- Andrei
I agree with is approach.
It does not add a magic Type :)
