Re: [Chicken-hackers] deprecation of always?, never?, none?

[Thomas Chust]

Felix wrote:
> From: Thomas Chust <address@hidden>
>> [...]
>> for example, in the context of type checking, you may want to
>> represent the fact that a function can never exit through its return
>> continuation by assigning the none return type to it.
> 
> That's a matter of control flow, not of type. Bottom is not a value,
> it is undefinedness, in every sense.
> [...]

Hello,

well, I think it's both a matter of control flow and types. The border
between those things is fuzzy, anyway. I suspect that any statement
about the control flow of a program can be expressed as a type if the
type system is sufficiently complex.

Ciao,
Thomas


-- 
When C++ is your hammer, every problem looks like your thumb.