>>107732149
>>107732183
I was thinking that maybe I could compromise and do a generic box type, without caring about the type of the boxed value. it wouldn't force me to having to expose types to the user, and I would still get better semantics for handling nullability. to me this syntax below looks fine but I don't know if I'm conditioning myself to think it is
some_num = 2!
no_num = ?
[1, 2, 3][0] // 1!
[1, 2, 3][4] // ?
if false 1 // ?, with lazy evaluation of the body
2! else 3 // 2
// streaked together, if <cond> <expr1> else <expr2> behaves like expected