Stabilizing Rust's Never Type
101 points by cjd8 4 days ago | 12 comments

kccqzy 29 minutes ago
The lesson here is that implicit conversions are bad. The never type itself having implicit conversions to other types is bad enough (even though such coercions are logically valid: “ex falso quodlibet” they should be explicit), but having a fallback type when type inference doesn’t have enough information to produce a type is even worse. Rust is famous for not even having implicit numeric coercions (say from i8 to i32) but it seems like a shortsighted decision to allow implicit coercions here.
reply
jadenPete 14 minutes ago
Why is it bad? Implicit integer conversions are generally bad because they can produce unexpected behavior at runtime and obstruct what’s really happening, but that doesn’t seem to be what’s happening here.

Never is a standard type in many languages and is at the bottom of the type hierarchy because it’s a subtype of every type. Never isn’t implicitly converted any more than `&’a A` is “implicitly converted” into a `&’b B`, where `’a` subsumes `’b`. There’s no runtime conversion because there will never be an instance of never—it represents the value of a computation that never completes by definition.

I think what you mean to say is that implicit runtime conversions are bad, not that all subtyping is bad.

reply
xg15 2 hours ago
> After this change (and on the 2024 edition), the compiler assumes that T should be !, which doesn't implement Default, and therefore causes a compilation error.

If ! can coerce to every type, why not treat it as if it implemented every trait too?

reply
tux3 2 hours ago
The Default trait provides a function that actually constructs the type in question. But here the ! type can never be constructed, so the only way to implement Default would be to have it panic, loop infinitely, or otherwise fail at runtime.

So this would risk turning a compile-time error into a runtime error.

reply
dlubarov 2 hours ago
Moreover, Rust traits' associated constants/types get in the way of having a proper bottom type. What would <! as Iterator>::Item be? (In Scala I think it just doesn't compile?)
reply
xg15 2 hours ago
Ah, that makes sense. Rust noob here, so I wasn't aware traits can act on types directly without any instance of the type. Thanks for the info!
reply
Sharlin 2 hours ago
Yep, they can have static methods, as it were (in Rust lingo called "associated functions"; "methods" in Rust always take a `self` receiver). Traits can also have associated types and associated constants, which (naturally) also relate to the type, not any particular instance.
reply
weinzierl 2 hours ago
Relevant talk by Waffle at RustWeek earlier this year:

"When is never?"

https://youtube.com/watch?v=3jM4cnEVrLc

reply
LatticeAnimal 57 minutes ago
Is it obvious to rust developers that "!" would be the never type? I frequently use "never" in typescript. I could imagine using the never type frequently in rust too. I feel like a longer more human-understandable name would've been a good decision here. (feels like more rust jargon that makes the language harder to learn)
reply
kibwen 43 minutes ago
> Is it obvious to rust developers that "!" would be the never type?

Prior to this change most Rust developers would never have cause to ever use `!` for any reason. The only stable way to do so would be to specify the quote-unquote "return type" of divergent functions, which Rust has supported via this special-cased syntax since prehistoric days, before even Mozilla got involved. You can see it in the oldest capture of the tutorial from Jan 2012: https://web.archive.org/web/20120109041112/http://www.rust-l...

So when it came time to elevate `!` from being a special-cased return type to being a fully-fledged type, it was only natural to reuse this syntax. However, I tend to agree that, because we call it "the never type" in casual conversation, the most natural thing to do would be to just have a type alias called `Never` that we could encourage people to use instead. But that would be a perfectly backwards-compatible change that could be made at any point (as proven by the fact that the stopgap and long-stable `Infallible` type is becoming just such a type).

reply
munchler 2 hours ago
As a fan of the Curry-Howard correspondence, I approve of this decision.
reply
epolanski 2 hours ago
The never type seems very useful in various languages to either signal that a branch can never happen (the example of string -> bytestring never erroring) or to mark that a function will never return a value (and thus control) to the caller.

A simple TypeScript example:

const forever = (): never => { while (true) { // whatever } }

reply