On Thursday, 9 August 2018 at 15:56:31 UTC, w0rp wrote:
On Thursday, 9 August 2018 at 10:37:36 UTC, Andrea Fontana
wrote:
On Thursday, 9 August 2018 at 04:10:47 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
wrote:
The DIP makes the claim that:
* "[@noreturn] has the awkward result of a function
specifying it has a return type T, but never returns that
type". When it is deliberate (such as annotating a fatal
error function) the is almost exclusively `void` (I know of
no examples to the contrary).
Let's say we need to implement an interface with a int func();
member. We can mark it with @noreturn but we can't use TBottom
return type: we're going to break interface implementation.
Andrea
It will work, and why it will work requires some understanding
of bottom types. You can define the function as `TBottom
func()` and it should work, because `TBottom` is a subtype of
`int`. In the same way you can implement `ParentClass func()`
as `SubClass func()`, because `SubClass` is a subtype of
`ParentClass`. Similarly, you can assign values of `TBottom` to
`int`, because `TBottom` is a subtype of all types, but you
cannot assign `int` to `TBottom`, because `int` is not a
subtype of `TBottom`.
is(T == int) will work with T==tbottom too?
is(T:int) ?
I feel that all this things are going to complicate
implementation and add corner cases, but maybe I'm wrong...
Andrea
