Is there any use case for the bottom type as a function parameter type?What is the difference between the semantic and syntactic views of function types?Type systems understanding problemsWhy aren't we researching more towards compile time guarantees?Why do we have to forbid non-conforming lower and upper type bounds?Question about “Type checking a multithreaded functional language with session types” by Vasconcelos et alSafe way to explicitly define new types instead of using Algebraic data types for my functional languageType-classes for type inferenceHow could one write typing rules with variables defined at call-site?What is the use case for multi-type-parameter generics?What is the use case of multi-type-parameters generic interface?
How do you say “buy” in the sense of “believe”?
How bitcoin nodes update UTXO set when their latests blocks are replaced?
What is the object moving across the ceiling in this stock footage?
When and what was the first 3D acceleration device ever released?
Is there any use case for the bottom type as a function parameter type?
Employer demanding to see degree after poor code review
How does an ARM MCU run faster than the external crystal?
What is the difference between nullifying your vote and not going to vote at all?
What is the most important source of natural gas? coal, oil or other?
Under what law can the U.S. arrest International Criminal Court (ICC) judges over war crimes probe?
Is there a down side to setting the sampling time of a SAR ADC as long as possible?
Geological aftereffects of an asteroid impact on a large mountain range?
Why colon to denote that a value belongs to a type?
Is there a way to make it so the cursor is included when I prtscr key?
Is there an evolutionary advantage to having two heads?
How to capture more stars?
Would the Geas spell work in a dead magic zone once you enter it?
How long does it take to crack RSA 1024 with a PC?
Is this resistor leaking? If so, is it a concern?
I think I may have violated academic integrity last year - what should I do?
How many chess players are over 2500 Elo?
Placing bypass capacitors after VCC reaches the IC
Why is this Simple Puzzle impossible to solve?
Why do Russians call their women expensive ("дорогая")?
Is there any use case for the bottom type as a function parameter type?
What is the difference between the semantic and syntactic views of function types?Type systems understanding problemsWhy aren't we researching more towards compile time guarantees?Why do we have to forbid non-conforming lower and upper type bounds?Question about “Type checking a multithreaded functional language with session types” by Vasconcelos et alSafe way to explicitly define new types instead of using Algebraic data types for my functional languageType-classes for type inferenceHow could one write typing rules with variables defined at call-site?What is the use case for multi-type-parameter generics?What is the use case of multi-type-parameters generic interface?
$begingroup$
If a function has return type of ⊥ (bottom type), that means it never returns. It can for example exit or throw, both fairly ordinary situations.
Presumably if a function had a parameter of type ⊥ it could never (safely) be called. Are there ever any reasons for defining such a function?
type-theory type-checking
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If a function has return type of ⊥ (bottom type), that means it never returns. It can for example exit or throw, both fairly ordinary situations.
Presumably if a function had a parameter of type ⊥ it could never (safely) be called. Are there ever any reasons for defining such a function?
type-theory type-checking
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If a function has return type of ⊥ (bottom type), that means it never returns. It can for example exit or throw, both fairly ordinary situations.
Presumably if a function had a parameter of type ⊥ it could never (safely) be called. Are there ever any reasons for defining such a function?
type-theory type-checking
New contributor
$endgroup$
If a function has return type of ⊥ (bottom type), that means it never returns. It can for example exit or throw, both fairly ordinary situations.
Presumably if a function had a parameter of type ⊥ it could never (safely) be called. Are there ever any reasons for defining such a function?
type-theory type-checking
type-theory type-checking
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 8 hours ago
bdslbdsl
1262
1262
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
One of the defining properties of the $bot$ or empty type is that there exists a function $bot to A$ for every type $A$. In fact, there exists a unique such function. It is therefore, fairly reasonable for this function to be provided as part of the standard library. Often it is called something like absurd
. (In systems with subtyping, this might be handled simply by having $bot$ be a subtype of every type. Then the implicit conversion is absurd
. Another related approach is to define $bot$ as $forall alpha.alpha$ which can simply be instantiated to any type.)
You definitely want to have such a function or an equivalent because it is what allows you to make use of functions that produce $bot$. For example, let's say I'm given a sum type $E+A$. I do a case analysis on it and in the $E$ case I'm going to throw an exception using $mathttthrow:Etobot$. In the $A$ case, I'll use $f:Ato B$. Overall, I want a value of type $B$ so I need to do something to turn a $bot$ into a $B$. That's what absurd
would let me do.
That said, there's not a whole lot of reason to define your own functions of $botto A$. By definition, they would necessarily be instances of absurd
. Still, you might do it if absurd
isn't provided by the standard library, or you wanted a type specialized version to assist type checking/inference. You can, however, easily produce functions that will end up instantiated to a type like $botto A$.
Even though there isn't much a reason to write such a function, it should generally still be allowed. One reason is that it simplifies code generation tools/macros.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Swift has a type "Never" which seems to be quite like the bottom type: A function declared to return Never can never return, a function with a parameter of type Never can never be called.
This is useful in connection with protocols, where there may be a restriction due to the type system of the language that a class must have a certain function, but with no requirement that this function should ever be called, and no requirement what the argument types would be.
For details you should have a look at the newer posts on the swift-evolution mailing list.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
"Newer posts on the swift-evolution mailing list" is not a very clear or stable reference. Is there not a web archive of the mailing list?
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The bottom type is a subtype of every other type, which can be extremely useful in practice. For example, the type of NULL
in a theoretical type-safe version of C must be a subtype of every other pointer type, otherwise you couldn't e.g. return NULL
where a char*
was expected; similarly, the type of undefined
in theoretical type-safe JavaScript must be a subtype of every other type in the language.
As a function return type, it's also very useful to have certain functions that never return. In a strongly-typed language with exceptions, for instance, what type should exit()
or throw()
return? They never return control flow to their caller. And since the bottom type is a subtype of every other type, it's perfectly valid for a function returning Int
to instead return $bot$—that is, a function returning Int
can also choose not to return at all. (Maybe it calls exit()
, or maybe it goes into an infinite loop.) This is good to have, because whether a function ever returns or not is famously undecidable.
Finally, it's very useful for writing constraints. Suppose you want to constrain all parameters on "both sides", providing a type that must be a supertype of the parameter, and another type that must be a subtype. Since bottom is a subtype of every type, you can express "any subtype of S" as $bot prec T prec S$. Or, you can express "any type at all" as $bot prec T prec top$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
NULL
is a unit type isn't it, distinct from ⊥ which is the empty type?
$endgroup$
– bdsl
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm not sure quite what ≺ means in type theory.
$endgroup$
– bdsl
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
NULL in C is actually a null pointer constant, and a null pointer constant is either a constant expression of integer type with value 0, or such an expression cast to void*. The compiler will then in certain situations replace null pointer constants with a null pointer of the appropriate type.
$endgroup$
– gnasher729
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@bdsl The curved operator here is "is a subtype of"; I'm not sure if it's standard, it's just what my professor used.
$endgroup$
– Draconis
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@gnasher729 True, but C also isn't particularly type-safe. I'm saying if you couldn't just cast an integer tovoid*
, you'd need a specific type for it that could be used for any pointer type.
$endgroup$
– Draconis
6 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "419"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
bdsl is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f109897%2fis-there-any-use-case-for-the-bottom-type-as-a-function-parameter-type%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
One of the defining properties of the $bot$ or empty type is that there exists a function $bot to A$ for every type $A$. In fact, there exists a unique such function. It is therefore, fairly reasonable for this function to be provided as part of the standard library. Often it is called something like absurd
. (In systems with subtyping, this might be handled simply by having $bot$ be a subtype of every type. Then the implicit conversion is absurd
. Another related approach is to define $bot$ as $forall alpha.alpha$ which can simply be instantiated to any type.)
You definitely want to have such a function or an equivalent because it is what allows you to make use of functions that produce $bot$. For example, let's say I'm given a sum type $E+A$. I do a case analysis on it and in the $E$ case I'm going to throw an exception using $mathttthrow:Etobot$. In the $A$ case, I'll use $f:Ato B$. Overall, I want a value of type $B$ so I need to do something to turn a $bot$ into a $B$. That's what absurd
would let me do.
That said, there's not a whole lot of reason to define your own functions of $botto A$. By definition, they would necessarily be instances of absurd
. Still, you might do it if absurd
isn't provided by the standard library, or you wanted a type specialized version to assist type checking/inference. You can, however, easily produce functions that will end up instantiated to a type like $botto A$.
Even though there isn't much a reason to write such a function, it should generally still be allowed. One reason is that it simplifies code generation tools/macros.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One of the defining properties of the $bot$ or empty type is that there exists a function $bot to A$ for every type $A$. In fact, there exists a unique such function. It is therefore, fairly reasonable for this function to be provided as part of the standard library. Often it is called something like absurd
. (In systems with subtyping, this might be handled simply by having $bot$ be a subtype of every type. Then the implicit conversion is absurd
. Another related approach is to define $bot$ as $forall alpha.alpha$ which can simply be instantiated to any type.)
You definitely want to have such a function or an equivalent because it is what allows you to make use of functions that produce $bot$. For example, let's say I'm given a sum type $E+A$. I do a case analysis on it and in the $E$ case I'm going to throw an exception using $mathttthrow:Etobot$. In the $A$ case, I'll use $f:Ato B$. Overall, I want a value of type $B$ so I need to do something to turn a $bot$ into a $B$. That's what absurd
would let me do.
That said, there's not a whole lot of reason to define your own functions of $botto A$. By definition, they would necessarily be instances of absurd
. Still, you might do it if absurd
isn't provided by the standard library, or you wanted a type specialized version to assist type checking/inference. You can, however, easily produce functions that will end up instantiated to a type like $botto A$.
Even though there isn't much a reason to write such a function, it should generally still be allowed. One reason is that it simplifies code generation tools/macros.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One of the defining properties of the $bot$ or empty type is that there exists a function $bot to A$ for every type $A$. In fact, there exists a unique such function. It is therefore, fairly reasonable for this function to be provided as part of the standard library. Often it is called something like absurd
. (In systems with subtyping, this might be handled simply by having $bot$ be a subtype of every type. Then the implicit conversion is absurd
. Another related approach is to define $bot$ as $forall alpha.alpha$ which can simply be instantiated to any type.)
You definitely want to have such a function or an equivalent because it is what allows you to make use of functions that produce $bot$. For example, let's say I'm given a sum type $E+A$. I do a case analysis on it and in the $E$ case I'm going to throw an exception using $mathttthrow:Etobot$. In the $A$ case, I'll use $f:Ato B$. Overall, I want a value of type $B$ so I need to do something to turn a $bot$ into a $B$. That's what absurd
would let me do.
That said, there's not a whole lot of reason to define your own functions of $botto A$. By definition, they would necessarily be instances of absurd
. Still, you might do it if absurd
isn't provided by the standard library, or you wanted a type specialized version to assist type checking/inference. You can, however, easily produce functions that will end up instantiated to a type like $botto A$.
Even though there isn't much a reason to write such a function, it should generally still be allowed. One reason is that it simplifies code generation tools/macros.
$endgroup$
One of the defining properties of the $bot$ or empty type is that there exists a function $bot to A$ for every type $A$. In fact, there exists a unique such function. It is therefore, fairly reasonable for this function to be provided as part of the standard library. Often it is called something like absurd
. (In systems with subtyping, this might be handled simply by having $bot$ be a subtype of every type. Then the implicit conversion is absurd
. Another related approach is to define $bot$ as $forall alpha.alpha$ which can simply be instantiated to any type.)
You definitely want to have such a function or an equivalent because it is what allows you to make use of functions that produce $bot$. For example, let's say I'm given a sum type $E+A$. I do a case analysis on it and in the $E$ case I'm going to throw an exception using $mathttthrow:Etobot$. In the $A$ case, I'll use $f:Ato B$. Overall, I want a value of type $B$ so I need to do something to turn a $bot$ into a $B$. That's what absurd
would let me do.
That said, there's not a whole lot of reason to define your own functions of $botto A$. By definition, they would necessarily be instances of absurd
. Still, you might do it if absurd
isn't provided by the standard library, or you wanted a type specialized version to assist type checking/inference. You can, however, easily produce functions that will end up instantiated to a type like $botto A$.
Even though there isn't much a reason to write such a function, it should generally still be allowed. One reason is that it simplifies code generation tools/macros.
answered 3 hours ago
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
9,75312133
9,75312133
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Swift has a type "Never" which seems to be quite like the bottom type: A function declared to return Never can never return, a function with a parameter of type Never can never be called.
This is useful in connection with protocols, where there may be a restriction due to the type system of the language that a class must have a certain function, but with no requirement that this function should ever be called, and no requirement what the argument types would be.
For details you should have a look at the newer posts on the swift-evolution mailing list.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
"Newer posts on the swift-evolution mailing list" is not a very clear or stable reference. Is there not a web archive of the mailing list?
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Swift has a type "Never" which seems to be quite like the bottom type: A function declared to return Never can never return, a function with a parameter of type Never can never be called.
This is useful in connection with protocols, where there may be a restriction due to the type system of the language that a class must have a certain function, but with no requirement that this function should ever be called, and no requirement what the argument types would be.
For details you should have a look at the newer posts on the swift-evolution mailing list.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
"Newer posts on the swift-evolution mailing list" is not a very clear or stable reference. Is there not a web archive of the mailing list?
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Swift has a type "Never" which seems to be quite like the bottom type: A function declared to return Never can never return, a function with a parameter of type Never can never be called.
This is useful in connection with protocols, where there may be a restriction due to the type system of the language that a class must have a certain function, but with no requirement that this function should ever be called, and no requirement what the argument types would be.
For details you should have a look at the newer posts on the swift-evolution mailing list.
$endgroup$
Swift has a type "Never" which seems to be quite like the bottom type: A function declared to return Never can never return, a function with a parameter of type Never can never be called.
This is useful in connection with protocols, where there may be a restriction due to the type system of the language that a class must have a certain function, but with no requirement that this function should ever be called, and no requirement what the argument types would be.
For details you should have a look at the newer posts on the swift-evolution mailing list.
answered 6 hours ago
gnasher729gnasher729
13.2k1824
13.2k1824
2
$begingroup$
"Newer posts on the swift-evolution mailing list" is not a very clear or stable reference. Is there not a web archive of the mailing list?
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
3 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
"Newer posts on the swift-evolution mailing list" is not a very clear or stable reference. Is there not a web archive of the mailing list?
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
3 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
"Newer posts on the swift-evolution mailing list" is not a very clear or stable reference. Is there not a web archive of the mailing list?
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
"Newer posts on the swift-evolution mailing list" is not a very clear or stable reference. Is there not a web archive of the mailing list?
$endgroup$
– Derek Elkins
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The bottom type is a subtype of every other type, which can be extremely useful in practice. For example, the type of NULL
in a theoretical type-safe version of C must be a subtype of every other pointer type, otherwise you couldn't e.g. return NULL
where a char*
was expected; similarly, the type of undefined
in theoretical type-safe JavaScript must be a subtype of every other type in the language.
As a function return type, it's also very useful to have certain functions that never return. In a strongly-typed language with exceptions, for instance, what type should exit()
or throw()
return? They never return control flow to their caller. And since the bottom type is a subtype of every other type, it's perfectly valid for a function returning Int
to instead return $bot$—that is, a function returning Int
can also choose not to return at all. (Maybe it calls exit()
, or maybe it goes into an infinite loop.) This is good to have, because whether a function ever returns or not is famously undecidable.
Finally, it's very useful for writing constraints. Suppose you want to constrain all parameters on "both sides", providing a type that must be a supertype of the parameter, and another type that must be a subtype. Since bottom is a subtype of every type, you can express "any subtype of S" as $bot prec T prec S$. Or, you can express "any type at all" as $bot prec T prec top$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
NULL
is a unit type isn't it, distinct from ⊥ which is the empty type?
$endgroup$
– bdsl
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm not sure quite what ≺ means in type theory.
$endgroup$
– bdsl
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
NULL in C is actually a null pointer constant, and a null pointer constant is either a constant expression of integer type with value 0, or such an expression cast to void*. The compiler will then in certain situations replace null pointer constants with a null pointer of the appropriate type.
$endgroup$
– gnasher729
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@bdsl The curved operator here is "is a subtype of"; I'm not sure if it's standard, it's just what my professor used.
$endgroup$
– Draconis
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@gnasher729 True, but C also isn't particularly type-safe. I'm saying if you couldn't just cast an integer tovoid*
, you'd need a specific type for it that could be used for any pointer type.
$endgroup$
– Draconis
6 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
The bottom type is a subtype of every other type, which can be extremely useful in practice. For example, the type of NULL
in a theoretical type-safe version of C must be a subtype of every other pointer type, otherwise you couldn't e.g. return NULL
where a char*
was expected; similarly, the type of undefined
in theoretical type-safe JavaScript must be a subtype of every other type in the language.
As a function return type, it's also very useful to have certain functions that never return. In a strongly-typed language with exceptions, for instance, what type should exit()
or throw()
return? They never return control flow to their caller. And since the bottom type is a subtype of every other type, it's perfectly valid for a function returning Int
to instead return $bot$—that is, a function returning Int
can also choose not to return at all. (Maybe it calls exit()
, or maybe it goes into an infinite loop.) This is good to have, because whether a function ever returns or not is famously undecidable.
Finally, it's very useful for writing constraints. Suppose you want to constrain all parameters on "both sides", providing a type that must be a supertype of the parameter, and another type that must be a subtype. Since bottom is a subtype of every type, you can express "any subtype of S" as $bot prec T prec S$. Or, you can express "any type at all" as $bot prec T prec top$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
NULL
is a unit type isn't it, distinct from ⊥ which is the empty type?
$endgroup$
– bdsl
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm not sure quite what ≺ means in type theory.
$endgroup$
– bdsl
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
NULL in C is actually a null pointer constant, and a null pointer constant is either a constant expression of integer type with value 0, or such an expression cast to void*. The compiler will then in certain situations replace null pointer constants with a null pointer of the appropriate type.
$endgroup$
– gnasher729
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@bdsl The curved operator here is "is a subtype of"; I'm not sure if it's standard, it's just what my professor used.
$endgroup$
– Draconis
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@gnasher729 True, but C also isn't particularly type-safe. I'm saying if you couldn't just cast an integer tovoid*
, you'd need a specific type for it that could be used for any pointer type.
$endgroup$
– Draconis
6 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
The bottom type is a subtype of every other type, which can be extremely useful in practice. For example, the type of NULL
in a theoretical type-safe version of C must be a subtype of every other pointer type, otherwise you couldn't e.g. return NULL
where a char*
was expected; similarly, the type of undefined
in theoretical type-safe JavaScript must be a subtype of every other type in the language.
As a function return type, it's also very useful to have certain functions that never return. In a strongly-typed language with exceptions, for instance, what type should exit()
or throw()
return? They never return control flow to their caller. And since the bottom type is a subtype of every other type, it's perfectly valid for a function returning Int
to instead return $bot$—that is, a function returning Int
can also choose not to return at all. (Maybe it calls exit()
, or maybe it goes into an infinite loop.) This is good to have, because whether a function ever returns or not is famously undecidable.
Finally, it's very useful for writing constraints. Suppose you want to constrain all parameters on "both sides", providing a type that must be a supertype of the parameter, and another type that must be a subtype. Since bottom is a subtype of every type, you can express "any subtype of S" as $bot prec T prec S$. Or, you can express "any type at all" as $bot prec T prec top$.
$endgroup$
The bottom type is a subtype of every other type, which can be extremely useful in practice. For example, the type of NULL
in a theoretical type-safe version of C must be a subtype of every other pointer type, otherwise you couldn't e.g. return NULL
where a char*
was expected; similarly, the type of undefined
in theoretical type-safe JavaScript must be a subtype of every other type in the language.
As a function return type, it's also very useful to have certain functions that never return. In a strongly-typed language with exceptions, for instance, what type should exit()
or throw()
return? They never return control flow to their caller. And since the bottom type is a subtype of every other type, it's perfectly valid for a function returning Int
to instead return $bot$—that is, a function returning Int
can also choose not to return at all. (Maybe it calls exit()
, or maybe it goes into an infinite loop.) This is good to have, because whether a function ever returns or not is famously undecidable.
Finally, it's very useful for writing constraints. Suppose you want to constrain all parameters on "both sides", providing a type that must be a supertype of the parameter, and another type that must be a subtype. Since bottom is a subtype of every type, you can express "any subtype of S" as $bot prec T prec S$. Or, you can express "any type at all" as $bot prec T prec top$.
edited 6 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
DraconisDraconis
6,0021921
6,0021921
$begingroup$
NULL
is a unit type isn't it, distinct from ⊥ which is the empty type?
$endgroup$
– bdsl
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm not sure quite what ≺ means in type theory.
$endgroup$
– bdsl
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
NULL in C is actually a null pointer constant, and a null pointer constant is either a constant expression of integer type with value 0, or such an expression cast to void*. The compiler will then in certain situations replace null pointer constants with a null pointer of the appropriate type.
$endgroup$
– gnasher729
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@bdsl The curved operator here is "is a subtype of"; I'm not sure if it's standard, it's just what my professor used.
$endgroup$
– Draconis
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@gnasher729 True, but C also isn't particularly type-safe. I'm saying if you couldn't just cast an integer tovoid*
, you'd need a specific type for it that could be used for any pointer type.
$endgroup$
– Draconis
6 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
NULL
is a unit type isn't it, distinct from ⊥ which is the empty type?
$endgroup$
– bdsl
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm not sure quite what ≺ means in type theory.
$endgroup$
– bdsl
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
NULL in C is actually a null pointer constant, and a null pointer constant is either a constant expression of integer type with value 0, or such an expression cast to void*. The compiler will then in certain situations replace null pointer constants with a null pointer of the appropriate type.
$endgroup$
– gnasher729
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@bdsl The curved operator here is "is a subtype of"; I'm not sure if it's standard, it's just what my professor used.
$endgroup$
– Draconis
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@gnasher729 True, but C also isn't particularly type-safe. I'm saying if you couldn't just cast an integer tovoid*
, you'd need a specific type for it that could be used for any pointer type.
$endgroup$
– Draconis
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
NULL
is a unit type isn't it, distinct from ⊥ which is the empty type?$endgroup$
– bdsl
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
NULL
is a unit type isn't it, distinct from ⊥ which is the empty type?$endgroup$
– bdsl
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm not sure quite what ≺ means in type theory.
$endgroup$
– bdsl
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm not sure quite what ≺ means in type theory.
$endgroup$
– bdsl
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
NULL in C is actually a null pointer constant, and a null pointer constant is either a constant expression of integer type with value 0, or such an expression cast to void*. The compiler will then in certain situations replace null pointer constants with a null pointer of the appropriate type.
$endgroup$
– gnasher729
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
NULL in C is actually a null pointer constant, and a null pointer constant is either a constant expression of integer type with value 0, or such an expression cast to void*. The compiler will then in certain situations replace null pointer constants with a null pointer of the appropriate type.
$endgroup$
– gnasher729
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@bdsl The curved operator here is "is a subtype of"; I'm not sure if it's standard, it's just what my professor used.
$endgroup$
– Draconis
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@bdsl The curved operator here is "is a subtype of"; I'm not sure if it's standard, it's just what my professor used.
$endgroup$
– Draconis
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@gnasher729 True, but C also isn't particularly type-safe. I'm saying if you couldn't just cast an integer to
void*
, you'd need a specific type for it that could be used for any pointer type.$endgroup$
– Draconis
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@gnasher729 True, but C also isn't particularly type-safe. I'm saying if you couldn't just cast an integer to
void*
, you'd need a specific type for it that could be used for any pointer type.$endgroup$
– Draconis
6 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
bdsl is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
bdsl is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
bdsl is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
bdsl is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Computer Science Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f109897%2fis-there-any-use-case-for-the-bottom-type-as-a-function-parameter-type%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown