upvote
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
You’re using “subtype” in two distinct, but related, senses here, and I think this should be clarified.

From a more category-theoretic perspective, a type A is a “subtype” of a type B when there is an embedding of A inside B. In this sense, `!` is a subtype of every type (which is its universal property). But this definition also grants you that `String` is a subtype of `BigInt`, because strings can be coded as bit sequences which can be coded in `BigInt`, which may or may not be what you expect.

From a programming languages perspective – and this is the terminology generally used in Rust – a type A is a “subtype” of a type B when `a: A` implies that `a: B`. In this sense, `!` is only a subtype of itself; although it coerces to any other type, it’s not _literally_ of that type, the coercion is just invisible in syntax. Importantly, if A is a subtype of B then `Vec<A>` is a subtype of `Vec<B>` – but `Vec<!>` is definitely not a subtype of `Vec<T>`, since they may have totally different layouts in memory (the former not allocating at all, while the latter potentially allocating).

reply
> A is a subtype of B then `Vec<A>` is a subtype of `Vec<B>`

That’s just not true. Java would permit it but then you get ArrayStoreException so this is unsound from a type system perspective. To make this sound, we need to classify each use of a type parameter to be covariant, contravariant, or invariant.

reply
No I’m not talking about runtime conversions. I’m talking about conversions that happen at type inference time.

Rust is not a subtyping based language, except for traits and lifetimes. So statements like never being at the bottom of the type hierarchy is irrelevant here even though it is correct. If Rust had higher rank types the never type is also (forall a. a) but still it doesn’t matter. It is simply surprising for a type to be converted implicitly according to subtyping rules other than for traits and lifetimes.

reply
Do you have an example of a piece of code that behaves in a surprising way because of this rule?
reply
I don’t need to write examples because the article has plenty. All the fixes that Waffle needs to fix are precisely the code that behaves in a surprising way.
reply
Let's avoid using the term "subtyping", which as you say is irrelevant here. The reason you need diverging functions to satisfy arbitrary type obligations (i.e. to coerce to any other type) is because otherwise anything as simple as `let x = Some(42); x.unwrap();` just completely fails to compile, because `unwrap` is internally just:

    fn unwrap<T>(t: Option<T>) -> T {
        match t {
            Some(foo) => foo,
            None => panic!()
        }
    }
...and this function couldn't otherwise typecheck because it doesn't return a `T` in the `None` branch. You need coercion here.
reply
No you don’t need coercion. You only need polymorphism. The type of `panic!()` could be an arbitrary U, which unifies just fine with the type T here.

Generally languages with such polymorphism have a never type only because they don’t also support impredicative polymorphism.

reply
And then once you have `fn foo<T>() -> T`, what do you write in the body that allows it to typecheck?
reply
With ! the implicit conversion happens at compile time, never at runtime.

It cannot by definition happen at runtime because the never type has no values and thus cannot be constructed under any circumstances.

Any compile time coercions that occur would convert types (or generics args of types) to !

I find it difficult to imagine any situation where that would result in a working program - only if the coerced types or references to coerced generics were not even used would it compile.

reply
We should be able to set at a crate level whether our code can compile with panics, implicit conversions, etc. And we should be able to blacklist dependencies and transitive dependencies that do these things. We should be able to advertise a crate's safety and attention to detail.

Higher level application code can benefit from this, but core libraries should forbid this statically and be prevented from even compiling or being imported should these things be enabled.

We should be able to filter crates.io by these properties, and force our own projects to abide by them.

I want nopanic, nocoerscion, maxdependencydepth, rustonly, nolinking, etc. flags.

reply
Do you have some specific coercion in mind that you want to forbid? Unlike C, Rust is extremely tame when it comes to coercions. Forbidding coercions in general in Rust code doesn't really make sense, and I can't think of any that aren't either beneficial at best or benign at worst.
reply