You are thinking of it as a return type, but that's not how you should think of it, really - that's an example of what it may be used for, but it should not be the only aspect.
It should be the opposite of Any, which (excluding None), seems to be Nothing. Or Singularity :) 6. 6. 2016 v 16:12, Vladimir.S via swift-evolution <[email protected]>: > +1 for Never, as 'foo() -> Never' reads as 'foo returns never' i.e. close to > 'never returns'. Or we just need NoReturn as replacement for @noreturn, and > then think about true bottom type and its name separately. > >> On 06.06.2016 16:37, Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution wrote: >> My preference from the current suggestions would be Never. >> >> -Thorsten >> >>> Am 06.06.2016 um 15:24 schrieb Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Ceylon uses `Nothing` for the bottom type. >>> >>> -Thorsten >>> >>>> Am 05.06.2016 um 20:39 schrieb Charlie Monroe via swift-evolution >>>> <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> While None is probably the best way to describe the opposite of Any, it >>>> would be often mistaken for .None (i.e. Optional) by newcomers to the >>>> language. >>>> >>>> I'd personally prefer calling it "Nil" (capital N), which really means >>>> "nonexistent". The same way ObjC had "nil" for "id" and "Nil" for Class. >>>> Possibly, to avoid confusion with nil, calling it Null? Though that might >>>> get confused with NSNull, once the NS prefix gets dropped. >>>> >>>> Or "Nothing" as in Scala. >>>> >>>>> On Jun 5, 2016, at 8:26 PM, Антон Жилин via swift-evolution >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The following names were suggested: NoReturn, Bottom, None, Never. >>>>> I would pick None, because it looks like opposite to Any and fits nicely >>>>> in generic types. >>>>> >>>>> I would prefer the type to be simple, and be implemented as a case-less >>>>> enum (not a bottom value, as in Haskell). >>>>> >>>>> None should be a usual enum, with no compiler magic except that functions >>>>> returning None are equivalent to current @noreturn. >>>>> >>>>> Example 1. >>>>> let x: None? >>>>> // ... >>>>> let y = x! >>>>> >>>>> It will trap in runtime not because we discover scary bottom thing, as in >>>>> Haskell, but because x had value Optional.none at that moment and we >>>>> asserted otherwise. >>>>> We could prove that it is always true in this case, but compiler must be >>>>> stupid about this. >>>>> >>>>> Example 2. >>>>> Compiler should allow including None in structures. Error will show up in >>>>> constructor, when we will not be able to initialize the field. >>>>> >>>>> Example 3. >>>>> None in an enum case makes that case never appear in values of such a >>>>> type. But compiler can not know about that. >>>>> >>>>> - Anton >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>> _______________________________________________ >>> swift-evolution mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
