Hi Rowan, > What you are proposing is a new syntax that changes step 5 to "else, throw a > TypeError". That might be a useful feature in some cases, but it's nothing to > do with the title of the RFC.
What we propose is to align these new operators to already existing rules applied to function arguments. This is, indeed, stricter than current cast operators. But I wouldn't say it has *nothing to do* with the title of the RFC. Maybe it's not perfectly accurate. If the naming is a problem and should be changed, I'd be happy to hear suggestions and update accordingly with a better name. — Alexandre Daubois
