[tines]

That's a good point. Maybe one could argue that rather than the unit type not being constructible, the wart of C is that functions that return "bot" can still "finish executing without returning".

I would almost rather argue that void is indeed the "bot" type, and a function marked with a void return type shouldn't be said to "return void;" rather we should say that it's an overloaded syntax that means the function has no return value at all. Same for "return bar()" there, that's just a false-friend of the syntax for returning a value, just syntactic sugar for "bar(); return;".