The Void type

[Autrijus Tang]

On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 07:13:53PM +0200, "TSa (Thomas SandlaÃ)" wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
> >: Void context still exists and is not a form of singular or plural
> >: context. Perhaps this should be called nullar context, although void
> >: context works equally well for me and is not confusing because we have
> >: no Void type.
> 
> Nice, without Void we don't need the double headed
> pseudo type lattice needed if we were to distinguish
> subs that return no usefull---that is Any---value
> from the ones that return no value at all.

Hrm.  So if I have a sub that does nothing:

    sub Foo { }

Is it illegal to say this?

    sub Foo returns Void { }

What about:

    sub Foo returns :() { }

Or do I really need to convert it to this?

    sub Foo returns Any { }

Thanks,
/Autrijus/

pgps9ng6j5ciI.pgp
Description: PGP signature