On 7/17/17 11:39 AM, Olivier FAURE wrote:
I'd really prefer if you avoided the whole `typeof(assert(0))` thing.
First off, it's way too verbose for a simple concept.
Noted, thanks. I won't debate this much but for now I disagree. The "no
return" type has several particular properties that set it aside (e.g.
it's impossible to implement as a library, does things no other types
do, etc). It's also used rarely. Therefore it stands to reason to
consider an attention-seeking notation for it.
The upside of this is we can always add an alias to give the type a name
if we so wish. For now I'd want to experiment with using typeof as notation.
Andrei
