On 18.07.2017 23:35, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
Could you explain why `return foo();` is even legal for a `void foo() {}`?
Because the ad-hoc decision to make void a type that is not really a type leads to unnecessary friction, and this exceptional rule removes the friction in one common special case.
I wasn't aware of it before and the fact that you can (syntactically) return the non-existent return value of `foo` raises cognitive dissonance flags for me. I imagine there's a type system reason?
There should be. foo's return type could be a unit type, with just one value. Then foo does have a return value, but it is always the same and so does not need to be explicitly tracked.
