[swift-evolution] Idea: change "@noreturn func f()" to "func f() noreturn"

[Joe Groff]

> On Feb 25, 2016, at 2:51 PM, Radosław Pietruszewski <radexpl at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 25 Feb 2016, at 23:47, Joe Groff <jgroff at apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 25, 2016, at 2:43 PM, Radosław Pietruszewski <radexpl at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 25 Feb 2016, at 23:40, Joe Groff <jgroff at apple.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 25, 2016, at 2:40 PM, Radosław Pietruszewski <radexpl at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ah, that’s a neat idea! Not sure it’s an improvement though to have a magic type that changes how the compiler treats your method, rather than a rather explicit *attribute* on the method…
>>>> 
>>>> There's no magic. If you can't construct a value of your return type, you can't return.
>>>> 
>>>> -Joe
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The magic is somewhere else. Calling a @noreturn function allows you to do things you can’t otherwise do:
>>> 
>>> func foo() -> Int {
>>> 	fatalError()
>>> }
>> 
>> I see. The unreachable code check arguably ought to also accept this if fatalError returns any uninhabited type, since it'll never be able return if that's the case.
>> 
>> -Joe
> 
> Would that actually be useful today? (i.e. aside from your idea) To me, having a NoReturn return type seems more magic and less obvious than an attribute.

I admit I might be hopelessly in the language implementor's bubble here. From a semantic perspective, returning any uninhabited type (it doesn't need to be a specific one) feels less magic to me than having a special attribute or syntactic form for 'no return', since it achieves the desired semantics without additional language features. It also composes obviously with other aspects of function types like `throws` and currying (should we decide to add it back), whereas a special form needs to explicitly describe its interaction with those features.

-Joe