void as type #8330
Answered
by
333fred
odussault05
asked this question in
Language Ideas
void as type
#8330
-
I am sure it is already mention, but why void shouldn't be handled like any type? Is there any drawback? It will be backward compatible since right now we can't do anything with a void. I think it will be a nice syntaxis sugar. Instead of doing this:
We would be able to do this one liner:
And I am sure it will open a whole new world of possibilities. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Answered by
333fred
Aug 2, 2024
Replies: 1 comment
-
See #696. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Answer selected by
svick
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
See #696.