In un post del 10/06 "The null type" e in un altro del 14/06 "The null type (un po' più chiaro)", mi chiedevo cosa vuol dire "the null type" nella frase "The type of a null-literal is the null type". Ecco la risposta di Dominic Cooney (bravi anche i suoi fratelli! :-) Joseph e Patrick)
"Re: Adrian Florea's comments on the 'null' type,
As I understand it, the 'null' type doesn't exist outside verification. So, for example, if you're doing verification and a control flow path that does ldnull merges with one that does ldstr, the verification algorithm merges the null type and string and comes up with string. This is why you can't just ascribe object as the type of slot ldnull produces (because in the example above object + string => object, which is unnecessarily general.)
So AFAIK the null type doesn't need an encoding like other types. If you look at the verifier in Rotor you should see where the null type comes in to play.
Joel, correct me if I'm wrong?"