[generics-rep] newtype NoConstructors = NoConstructors Void

[no-longer-on-githu-b]

This way you can use absurd. Although if we implement purescript/purescript#2922 then this is not necessary.

[paf31]

👍 Sounds good, although it's (technically) breaking unfortunately.

[hdgarrood]

Another possibility could be to just provide a separate absurd :: forall a. NoConstructors -> a?

[JordanMartinez]

Is this a breaking change we want to get in before v0.14.0?

[hdgarrood]

I’m not sure this is even breaking actually: right now we don’t export any constructors so I can’t think of how code might stop working if we did this. It would be breaking if we had done purescript/purescript#2922, but we haven’t yet.

[JordanMartinez]

I'm going to close this for the time being. I don't think this is relevant until the above issue is implemented (if we do decide to do that).

[hdgarrood]

I think it is still relevant, because regardless of what we do in the linked issue, we should provide a way of eliminating a NoConstructors value so that users don’t need to resort to unsafe functions. It does depend on the result of that issue but if we don’t do anything there then we will need to do something here.

[hdgarrood]

(It’s not vital to address this before 0.14 but that doesn’t mean it can’t stay open.)

[JordanMartinez]

Makes sense. I feel like this should have a label on it indicating that it depends on the compiler so that one doesn't have to read the whole thing to understand that and so we can filter it out of searches.