“Nothing” can easily be interpreted as an uninhabited type (regardless of its use in haskell). > a fancy way to say void? Less fancy and more workable. Had vo

“Nothing” can easily be interpreted as an uninhabited type (regardless of its use in haskell). > a fancy way to say void? Less fancy and more workable. Had void been a proper type in the first place it would not have been needed (but also… void had the same issue as nothing, it sounds like an uninhabited type more than a unit type). Despite that, they could have called it Void, even if the standard library normally uses all lowercase.