Thank you. I got confused on nomenclature because of a null pointer's similarity to the bottom type.
I was trying to say that having a NULL value that inhabits every type seems silly as not every set of values has the NULL value. Considering that NULL can be represented as a special case of sum types, it seems even sillier to mandate such a value on all types.
Using both NULL and nullable seems very confusing as well.
I was trying to say that having a NULL value that inhabits every type seems silly as not every set of values has the NULL value. Considering that NULL can be represented as a special case of sum types, it seems even sillier to mandate such a value on all types.
Using both NULL and nullable seems very confusing as well.