• Aloso
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      No it’s not, it is 100% a unit type (except it’s not really a type, since you can only use it as return type and nowhere else)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        It’s not possible to instantiate or assign, which is more like a never type than a unit; and it is not possible to define new types with the same properties, which is also more like bottom than unit. But you’re right that it’s not actually a true never type since it can’t represent function divergence.

        I think the truth is just that Java’s type system isn’t very mathematically disciplined.

        • Aloso
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s not possible to instantiate or assign, which is more like a never type than a unit

          Actually, this is because void is not a type, it is just a keyword, a placeholder used instead of the return type when a function doesn’t return anything.

          If it were a bottom type, that would mean that a method returning void must diverge, which is simply not true.

          Also, if it were a bottom type, it would be possible to write an “unreachable” method

          void unreachable(void bottom) {
              return bottom;
          }
          

          Even though it couldn’t be called, it should be possible to define it, if void was a bottom type. But it is not, because void isn’t a bottom type, it’s no type at all.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            The post has been edited; it looks like someone on reddit made essentially the same point. You’re right of course that void isn’t a true type in Java, but the post now also discusses Void, which I suppose just shows how void infects the type system despite not being a type.