Void type in base

[Twan van Laarhoven]

On 17/07/13 07:14, Shachaf Ben-Kiki wrote:
> It seems strange that there's a canonical unit type -- () -- which is
> used extensively, but no canonical type for its dual, the uninhabited
> type. The closest we have is in Edward Kmett's void package, but
> several people seem to prefer to write it themselves rather than incur
> an extra dependency, which is a shame.

What is the advantage of having Data.Void in base compared to a separate 
package? I think the real issue is including the module in the Haskell Platform. 
It is not as if people don't use other platform libraries like containers.



Twan