`inline val` of `null`

[japgolly]

Compiler version

RC3

Minimized code

object Test1 {
  inline val v = null
  inline def d = null
}

Output

[error] 2 |  inline val v = null
[error]   |                 ^^^^
[error]   |                 inline value must contain a literal constant value.
[error]   |
[error]   |                 To inline more complex types consider using `inline def`
[error] one error found

Expectation

Want to check that this is really desired behaviour vs an oversight. null's are literal constants right? Literal(Constant(null)) is valid in the quoting API.

[bishabosha]

I guess the error message is misleading, an inline val needs to have a literal type, and there is no literal type for null

[som-snytt]

I would have expected null is literally the most literal type. I guess the same for unit and nothing.

[sjrd]

Nothing doesn't have a value, so no. But I agree that null and () should have corresponding literal types, or at least that we should be able to use them in the same capacity as other literals.

[nicolasstucki]

The current limitation for supporting inline val n = null and inline val u = () is that we o not guarantee constant folding on them as with literal types. We would need to start with that, created #12198 to track progress on this enhancement.