Re: [PATCH] Disallow empty "or" type specifier

[Peter Bex]

On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:33:43PM +0300, elf wrote:
> It certainly shouldn't be *, nor should it be an error... technically an 
> empty union should be a null set, which would correspond to either a 
> non-extant type or to no return/value at all...

We've discussed this on IRC.  Such a null type doesn't exist in Scheme,
and "no return value" would correspond to a zero "multiple return
values", which has a different notation in our type system.

The (or) is an individual value, which could occur multiple times in a
"multiple return values" list.  We don't splice MV values together,
so this is either a null type or an error.

So in our case, it should definitely be an error since we don't have
null types.

Cheers,
Peter

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature