-1 for all the reasons already mentioned.
Although, if we end up accepting this anyway, FWIW I'd prefer "DoesNotReturn"
or "NeverReturns" over "NoReturn" or "Never". They both read better to me, and
their imperative names help make it clearer that something is different.
- Dave Sweeris
> On
> * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
I like the idea, but not the name. I would prefer a more general name like
`Never`.
If `NoReturn` becomes a universal bottom type, it's going to need a more
universal name than `NoReturn` It's very narrow and specialized, so it's not
* What is your evaluation of the proposal?
-1. I don't believe that the '-> NoReturn' adequately expresses the behavior of a
function. I view the construction 'T -> U' as a contract which states 'give me a
T and I'll give you a U'. This stops making sense when U is NoReturn: 'give me a T
and
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:04 AM Chris Lattner wrote:
> Hello Swift community,
>
> The review of "SE-0102: Remove @noreturn attribute and introduce an empty
> NoReturn type" begins now and runs through June 27. The proposal is
> available here:
>
>
>
I have to say, this might be the most swifty of the swift proposals.
There's something about it that's elegant and beautiful, so big +1 from me.
I do think Never makes more sense, but I understand the clarity that NoReturn
brings.
For a feature that most probably won't even use, maybe we