RFC: never and unknown types (#434)

Co-authored-by: Alexander McCord <11488393+alexmccord@users.noreply.github.com>

rfcs/none-and-unknown-types.md

@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+# Add never and unknown types
+
+## Summary
+
+Add `unknown` and `never` types that are inhabited by everything and nothing respectively.
+
+## Motivation
+
+There are lots of cases in local type inference, semantic subtyping,
+and type normalization, where it would be useful to have top and
+bottom types. Currently, `any` is filling that role, but it has
+special "switch off the type system" superpowers.
+
+Any use of `unknown` must be narrowed by type refinements unless another `unknown` or `any` is expected. For
+example a function which can return any value is:
+
+```lua
+  function anything() : unknown ... end
+```
+
+and can be used as:
+
+```lua
+  local x = anything()
+  if type(x) == "number" then
+    print(x + 1)
+  end
+```
+
+The type of this function cannot be given concisely in current
+Luau. The nearest equivalent is `any`, but this switches off the type system, for example
+if the type of `anything` is `() -> any` then the following code typechecks:
+
+```lua
+  local x = anything()
+  print(x + 1)
+```
+
+This is fine in nonstrict mode, but strict mode should flag this as an error.
+
+The `never` type comes up whenever type inference infers incompatible types for a variable, for example
+
+```lua
+  function oops(x)
+    print("hi " .. x)  -- constrains x must be a string
+    print(math.abs(x)) -- constrains x must be a number
+  end
+```
+
+The most general type of `x` is `string & number`, so this code gives
+a type error, but we still need to provide a type for `oops`. With a
+`never` type, we can infer the type `oops : (never) -> ()`.
+
+or when exhaustive type casing is achieved:
+
+```lua
+  function f(x: string | number)
+    if type(x) == "string" then
+      -- x : string
+    elseif type(x) == "number" then
+      -- x : number
+    else
+      -- x : never
+    end
+  end
+```
+
+or even when the type casing is simply nonsensical:
+
+```lua
+  function f(x: string | number)
+    if type(x) == "string" and type(x) == "number" then
+      -- x : string & number which is never
+    end
+  end
+```
+
+The `never` type is also useful in cases such as tagged unions where
+some of the cases are impossible. For example:
+
+```lua
+  type Result<T, E> = { err: false, val: T } | { err: true, err: E }
+```
+
+For code which we know is successful, we would like to be able to
+indicate that the error case is impossible. With a `never` type, we
+can do this with `Result<T, never>`. Similarly, code which cannot succeed
+has type `Result<never, E>`.
+
+These types can _almost_ be defined in current Luau, but only quite verbosely:
+
+```lua
+  type never = number & string
+  type unknown = nil | number | boolean | string | {} | (...never) -> (...unknown)
+```
+
+But even for `unknown` it is impossible to include every single data types, e.g. every root class.
+
+Providing `never` and `unknown` as built-in types makes the code for
+type inference simpler, for example we have a way to present a union
+type with no options (as `never`). Otherwise we have to contend with ad hoc
+corner cases.
+
+## Design
+
+Add:
+
+* a type `never`, inhabited by nothing, and
+* a type `unknown`, inhabited by everything.
+
+And under success types (nonstrict mode), `unknown` is exactly equivalent to `any` because `unknown`
+encompasses everything as does `any`.
+
+The interesting thing is that `() -> (never, string)` is equivalent to `() -> never` because all
+values in a pack must be inhabitable in order for the pack itself to also be inhabitable. In fact,
+the type `() -> never` is not completely accurate, it should be `() -> (never, ...never)` to avoid
+cascading type errors. Ditto for when an expression list `f(), g()` where the resulting type pack is
+`(never, string, number)` is still the same as `(never, ...never)`.
+
+```lua
+  function f(): never error() end
+  function g(): string return "" end
+
+  -- no cascading type error where count mismatches, because the expression list f(), g()
+  -- was made to return (never, ...never) due to the presence of a never type in the pack
+  local x, y, z = f(), g()
+  -- x : never
+  -- y : never
+  -- z : never
+```
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+Another bit of complexity budget spent.
+
+These types will be visible to creators, so yay bikeshedding!
+
+Replacing `any` with `unknown` is a breaking change: code in strict mode may now produce errors.
+
+## Alternatives
+
+Stick with the current use of `any` for these cases.
+
+Make `never` and `unknown` type aliases rather than built-ins.