I really don't think this name is good for the general user experience. My feeling is that it seems to model several different things which the name doesn't reflect very well on. At least nothing reflected the domain of values a little bit better.

@DanielRosenwasser The primary use for never is as the return type of functions that never return. I'm hard pressed to come up with a more concise and descriptive name. Certainly nothing isn't in my mind.

The problem with nothing is that it's very confusing to then say "void is the return type of functions that return nothing". never also parses well with quick info in typeguarded code:

function f(x: A | B) {
  if(isA(x)) {
  } else if(isB(x)) {
  } else {
    x; // appears as type 'never'
  }
}

My objection to never is that it reads strangely: "f returns never" wants to be "f never returns". But "f returns nothing" reads fine.
It would help to show some examples of never actually used in some of the tests.

Other than that, and bike shedding on the name, the code looks good.

Agreed with Nathan - the code looks fine, but I have those gripes with the naming.

Yes, but "f returns nothing" also strongly implies that f actually returns. Which is precisely the intuition we want to avoid!

Interesting. That makes it sounds intended that none of the tests explicitly mention their return type is never. Could we get away with not making never a keyword and having it always be inferred?

No, we can't get away with never always being inferred. We need it in declaration files, for example. Several of the tests in the PR already explicitly specify never as their return type.

OK, that makes sense. The d.ts is a good enough reason to have the keyword, although I noticed the rest -- outside a d.ts -- are all error cases where the annotation specifies : never and then fails to get it.

This will be a breaking change for back compat for .d.ts emit. in the past we inferred the type of these methods/functions as void. some one using nightly builds will generate .d.ts files that have the new type never that is not consumable by TS 1.8 users.

@mhegazy Yes, but an easy fix is to add a void type annotation.

we said we will be more careful in the future with such changes.

I don't see a big issue here. We're being more precise in our type analysis and that may change the outcome of inference. There are other such issues already resulting from the control flow based type analysis (e.g. narrowing occurs in more places which might affect inferred return types). Effectively we can only replicate the old results by keeping the old code and not changing anything. I think it is reasonable to recommend explicit type annotations if you want to freeze the shape of an API.

Being more precise is one issue. Generating a .d.ts that is not consumable is another.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. What are you proposing?

@ahejlsberg I've just submitted an issue (#8655) about better type analysis around assert(...) calls. Could this never type be a step toward that kind of analysis becoming possible in future? assert functions might require a return type annotation like void | never or x is T | never to tell consumers they either prove a type assertion or don't return at all.

Sorry for not minding my own business. The official 1.8. has its *.d.ts fixed and shipped, whoever needs it is welcome to get it anytime. Technically speaking nightly build is 1.9.+ with a bump in the major version number which means breaking changes are likely. Can't see any crime here. People who are scared to break their code are warned to proceed with caution or stay where they are. Am I missing the point?

The official 1.8. has its *.d.ts fixed and shipped, whoever needs it is welcome to get it anytime. Technically speaking nightly build is 1.9.+ with a bump in the major version number which means breaking changes are likely. Can't see any crime here. People who are scared to break their code are warned to proceed with caution or stay where they are. Am I missing the point?

It isn't only the TypeScript team that generates .d.ts files. 😄 Meaning that there is a fracture in the entire ecosystem. For example if Angular 2, Dojo 2, RxJS, etc. migrate then it causes them to generate definition files that are not consumable by those that haven't upgraded, continuing to fracture and annoy the wider TypeScript community. Many large entities don't have the time or resources to keep upgrading every 6 weeks.

Both @ahejlsberg and @mhegazy have points. My opinion is if this lands for 2.0, there is the readonly breaking change. Arguably that is opt-in, while in theory, this would likely end up not being opt-in, but invariably people are going to start producing .d.ts files with readonly anyways and stranding < 2.0 users. So I would say 2.0 would be the point to break things from an interface perspective.

Not quite seeing the issue in the example.

These people (for disclosure, I am the lead for Dojo 2) issue .d.ts which are then consumed by other people to build applications. Your original statement was:

The official 1.8. has its *.d.ts fixed and shipped, whoever needs it is welcome to get it anytime.

But instead of acknowledging that there is potentially more breakage than just what version of the lib.d.ts someone is using, you suggest that project like Dojo 2 (of which I am the lead) can start issuing versions of their .d.ts files without regard for the fact that these projects have a downstream user base. There is a risk with a non-optional breakage like this that we could have serious impacts downstream.

I clearly indicated that both Anders and Mohammad had valid points, of which you seemed to suggest in your original statement confusion about why Mohammad was concerned. I am glad he is concerned. I know both Anders and Mohammad consider downstream projects like Dojo 2 and others in their decisions. Ryan further added though that valid point that this isn't the first breakage of definition files that force the larger community to upgrade. I would argue though that intersection and union types were opt-in, so in theory downstream projects could have chosen not to use them, but they were actually key enablers and so I know we chose to opt-in to them.

Clearly the compromise of emitting a void in declaration files would be perfect and cause a whole lot less downstream carnage. I am really glad to know that the team thinks about these things instead of going "oh, whats the big deal, people can just upgrade"...

you suggest that project like Dojo 2 (of which I am the lead) can start issuing versions of their .d.ts files

Where did I say that?

What I said is: it's a purely engineering problem, and this is what we, engineers, do for living: solve them, and not to seem too arrogant I even outlined how it can be done in typical cases.

Now if the budget of TS is big enough to take on supporting backward compatibility for every team that might benefit of it, I am all for it. Doubtfully so.

More realistically the budget of TS can be better spent on developing new features merits of which far outweigh the troubles of adopting them. And this is what I am rooting for.

Lastly please give an example how v.2.0/lib.d.ts has anything to do with v.1.8/dojo.d.ts?

I'm not sure generating : void instead of : never in .d.ts files until we ship 2.0 will materially change anything. Aside from appearing to be a bug, it just delays the realization that something has changed. In fact, if we're going to break something then we should break it early in a nightly build to give folks time to adapt. Introducing the actual break right as we ship seems really bad.

We already have a breaking change in 2.0 with readonly because we sometimes infer it (e.g. when you have a get accessor without a set accessor). I think this one is very similar. I also think it is quite reasonable to ship these changes as long as we document them and the appropriate workarounds.

Alternative solutions are:

• Never infer never as a return type and instead require an explicit type annotation.
• Introduce (yet another) switch to enable or disable inference of never return types.

I think both of those are worse than just introducing the change. There is real value in having inference produce never as it calls out an important behavioral distinction. We lose that with an opt-in model. And we really don't want more switches.

In #8252 we said we will add this to our "feature checklist". i am just bringing this up as a violation of this.

Given that we rejected the sourceVersion suggestion earlier this weeks, I believe there are two options here, the first is the one you mentioned (that also should apply to undefined and null now that i think about it), and the second is to say this is too much of a restriction, and it is not supported.
My vote would be for the second.

Discussed with @mhegazy. We're good with documenting this as a breaking change for .d.ts emit and will also document the workaround (add void type annotations).

What a nice feature! I also quite like the name.

Note for breaking changes docs:
A common break would be a base class with an implementation to always throws. previously the return was inferred as void, now it is never.

Example:

class Base {
    method() {
        throw new Error("Not Implemented!");
    }
}

class Derived extends Base {
    method() {
        return 0; 
    }
}

// error TS2415: Class 'Derived' incorrectly extends base class 'Base'.
//   Types of property 'method' are incompatible.
//     Type '() => number' is not assignable to type '() => never'.
//       Type 'number' is not assignable to type 'never'.

Recommendation:

Give the base class method a type annotation of the expected return type, be it void or any other concrete type.

With #8767 we have modified the inference rules to fix the breaking change above. I think we can just consider this a new feature and remove the breaking change label.

how about naming it as "impossible" instead of "never"

I understand that the primary reason to call the type "never" derives from the desire to facilitate the reading the never returning function declaration. For me, it does not reflect the essence of the type. Look:

var x:never = IAlwaysThrow();

On the other hand the common definition of such code is unreachable code block. Wouldn't it be better to name the type "unreachable"?

function IAlwaysThrow() : unreachable {
    throw Error();
}

var x:unreachable = IAlwaysThrow();

I understand that no one will ever declare a variable of 'unreachable' type, but type is type. When I see var y:number, I attribute some properties to y. On the same way when I see x:unreachable I understand that I will never reach this point in code. "Never" is close, yet it's uncommon term for this case.

Considering this is already merged and documented, all we are doing is 🚲 🏠 and navel gazing something is a semantic opinion. The naming was already debated and settled.

What's the point?

@fightingcat the point is that TypeScript lacked a bottom type and that made it difficult to properly enforce parts of a type system.

@remojansen please use Stack Overflow for questions -- thanks!

@RyanCavanaugh sorry my mistake will move it to SO.