{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiaxjkddxau7zstbyifd4ktxulkfzyedxtox4bcprppbn7ciqqbghe",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pi6woz4d47bkuws673w2il2r/app.bsky.feed.post/3mmtfhv34ccx2"
  },
  "path": "/t/why-no-exposed-nulladdr-literal/14157#post_4",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-27T11:24:12.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.haskell.org",
  "tags": [
    "!10841"
  ],
  "textContent": "tomjaguarpaw:\n\n> I’m not sure it is fair, or at least there could in principle be an exception for values, and a newtype constructor applied to a value would be value. Maybe that adds too much extra complexity to be worth it.\n\nI worked on this during my internship at Well-Typed. It is quite complicated. I managed to implement a basic form for unlifted top-level binding in Core (for optimizations), but that is stuck on supporting this in GHCi: !10841.",
  "title": "Why no exposed `NullAddr#` literal?"
}