Jon Pretty

I think that would just be Some[Int] \ Product (maybe the scala compiler can prove this is Nothing, but it's not a deal breaker either way)

You mean Any, not Nothing, surely?

Some[Int] is a Product, so if you forbid Product then nothing can satisfy Some[Int] right?

I concur, it's kinda how you can have `Int & String` it's also equivalent to `Nothing`, but the compiler can't necessarily check that

Int & String is not equivalent to Nothing at all! They happen to have the same members, but they're very different types. Types are defined by their properties, and Int & String represents the union of the sets of properties of Int and String...

Right, maybe we're talking about different equivalence relations. `Int & String` may not be `=:=` to Nothing, but sure as hell is isomorphic to it

But it's not if you use that type as a bound, or for resolving an implicit, and types can be used in this way in Scala. It's only equivalent if you treat it as a set of values, and that's not what it is!

It seems like we might be agreeing? Can you name me one use case where `Int & String` would be a useful type and `Nothing` wouldn't do?