3 ms·

I think you are thinking a group of things as a group of types. Those two concepts are separate. A group of things has its own type which is not necessarily rel

I think you are thinking a group of things as a group of types. Those two concepts are separate. A group of things has its own type which is not necessarily related to the type of the things in that group. If you want an Everything type that is different from the Any type, the only type I can think of would be a type whose instances behave the same as every type. That doesn't make a lot sense to me.

igravious 11y ago
> If you want an Everything type that is different from the Any type, the only type I can think of would be a type whose instances behave the same as every type. That doesn't make a lot sense to me. I know, right? For me, everything semantically would have to include all types and all instances of types. Types are things also after all. In type theory collections of types are called universes. I'm not referring to those (I think). Everything encompasses all things, not just all types. Also, would everything include itself? Giving us Russell's paradox, which type theory seeks to avoid. We ought to be able to talk about all things. And everything is an alias for the phrase "all things". I agree that Any is kind of (exactly) like void* in C or BasicObject in Ruby.
- junke 11y ago
  Well, I understand what you mean with void* but as a type, void* is not a supertype of all other types.