Renaming Void#

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Renaming Void#

Krzysztof Gogolewski
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20131217/a0d754eb/attachment.html>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Renaming Void#

Edward Kmett-2
The change makes sense to me. Others?


On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Krzysztof Gogolewski <
krz.gogolewski at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20131217/f1088d51/attachment.html>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Renaming Void#

Roman Cheplyaka-2
In reply to this post by Krzysztof Gogolewski
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 <krz.gogolewski at 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 at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20131217/954df697/attachment.sig>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Renaming Void#

Edward Kmett-2
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 <roma at 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 <krz.gogolewski at 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 at haskell.org
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20131217/95a633bb/attachment.html>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Renaming Void#

José Pedro Magalhães
In reply to this post by Edward Kmett-2
+1


On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Edward Kmett <ekmett at gmail.com> wrote:

> The change makes sense to me. Others?
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Krzysztof Gogolewski <
> krz.gogolewski at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 at haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20131218/f2dd3c96/attachment.html>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Renaming Void#

Simon Peyton Jones
In reply to this post by Edward Kmett-2
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 at 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 <roma at ro-che.info<mailto:roma at 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 <krz.gogolewski at gmail.com<mailto:krz.gogolewski at 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 at haskell.org<mailto:ghc-devs at haskell.org>
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs at haskell.org<mailto:ghc-devs at haskell.org>
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20131230/b21e5c50/attachment.html>