On Jun 9, 2017, at 8:43 AM, Dan Smith <daniel.sm...@oracle.com> wrote: > > I prefer the discipline of making 'void' a separate entity (CONSTANT_Void?) > that we don't necessarily call a "type", although not sure that carries its > weight.
I think on balance the JLS would be cleaner if we admitted void is a type, with some funny restrictions. (IIRC Alex tilts this way too.) Allowing <T> in return position to assume <void> will be attractive with new generics.
