Kagamin Wrote: > Yigal Chripun Wrote: > > > for instance there's special handling of void return types so it would > > be easier to work with in generic code. instead of this compiler hack a > > much simpler solution is to have a unit type and ditch C style void. the > > bottom type should also exist mainly for completeness and for a few > > stdlib functions like abort() and exit() > > uint and void return types may be nearly equivalent for x86 architecture, CLI > makes strong difference between them.
Are you two talking about the same thing? uint and unit are quite different from each other. My understanding from scala is that most/all uses of unit are optimized away. I still don't know what unit holds...
