On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:24 PM Claude Pache <claude.pa...@gmail.com> wrote: > The choice of supporting precisely the two literal values `null` and `false` > is not arbitrary: They are the two values that are the most often used as > sentinel values (for indicating failure or absence). It is true that `true` is > also sometimes used as sentinel value (more rarely and not among the > internal functions), but the same can be said of other literal values > (one of your examples includes `0`). > While I personally think `false` makes sense as an allowed "type", I also don't want to see the union types RFC get held up on such a tiny detail.
I would propose either of the following alternatives: 1/ Remove `false` from the proposal. It can always be added at a later time, but not taken away. 2/ Make this detail a sub-vote. I would suggest that this sub-vote should also be subject to a 2/3 majority in order to pass. -Sara
