RE: Renaming Void#

I’d be ok with making this change. If you do, it’d be worth searching for “void” in comments in GHC’s source code, and updating them appropriately. Simon From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Edward Kmett Sent: 17 December 2013 20:04 To: Roman Cheplyaka Cc: ghc-devs Subject: Re: Renaming Void# That doesn't seem to be saying anything motivating the choice of name, just motivates the existence of some nullary unboxed type. -Edward On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Roman Cheplyaka mailto:roma@ro-che.info> wrote: Have you read the Note [Nullary unboxed tuple] in compiler/types/Type.lhs? I think it addresses this, although I'm not going to pretend I understand what's going on there. Roman * Krzysztof Gogolewski mailto:krz.gogolewski@gmail.com> [2013-12-17 19:28:14+0100]

Hello,

Small bikeshedding: I propose to rename recently added Void# (in GHC.Prim) to Unit#, and void# to unit#. As far as I understand, this type is the unboxed equivalent of () (i.e. single-element type) rather than Void (i.e. empty type). The name Void# might be reserved for a type which has completely no inhabitants. Any comments?

KG _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.orgmailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.orgmailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs