Re: The Void type

[Rod Adams]

Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 07:13:53PM +0200, "TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" wrote:
 

Larry Wall wrote:
   

: Void context still exists and is not a form of singular or plural
: context. Perhaps this should be called nullar context, although void
: context works equally well for me and is not confusing because we have
: no Void type.
     

Nice, without Void we don't need the double headed
pseudo type lattice needed if we were to distinguish
subs that return no usefull---that is Any---value
from the ones that return no value at all.
   

Hrm.  So if I have a sub that does nothing:
   sub Foo { }
Is it illegal to say this?
   sub Foo returns Void { }
 

Can't we just say :
   Void =:= none(Any)
and get Void for near free?
-- Rod Adams