Hello Rowan, Le ven. 23 janv. 2026 à 18:46, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] <[email protected]> a écrit : > I don't think we should repurpose widely-used syntax for a different use > case. If we want new functionality, with new semantics, we should add new > syntax for that.
The rules/semantics proposed in this RFC are not new. These are validation rules applied to function arguments (see https://3v4l.org/WQJPv#vnull). This is nothing new, and it doesn't use exotic syntax, but rather a standard type declaration. For this reason, and given the complexity that it would add (even more) to the language, adding new syntax does not seem to me to be the right approach: these behaviors already exist with existing syntax that is well known to everyone. — Alexandre Daubois
