That doesn't seem to be saying anything motivating the choice of name, just motivates the existence of some nullary unboxed type.
-Edward On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Roman Cheplyaka <[email protected]> wrote: > Have you read the Note [Nullary unboxed tuple] in compiler/types/Type.lhs? > I think it addresses this, although I'm not going to pretend I > understand what's going on there. > > Roman > > * Krzysztof Gogolewski <[email protected]> [2013-12-17 > 19:28:14+0100] > > Hello, > > > > Small bikeshedding: I propose to rename recently added Void# (in > GHC.Prim) > > to Unit#, and void# to unit#. As far as I understand, this type is the > > unboxed equivalent of () (i.e. single-element type) rather than Void > (i.e. > > empty type). The name Void# might be reserved for a type which has > > completely no inhabitants. Any comments? > > > > KG > > > _______________________________________________ > > ghc-devs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
