Hello, One question I have (as I always do) regarding nullable intersection types, (which is a forbidden topic and I know I shouldn't bring it up).
I'd love to know how `Consistency` plays a role in new RFCs. Are we striving for consistency? Is it a value here? Or simply it is a side effect? We sorta have nullability everywhere, `function/method parameters`, `return types`, properties. (please let me know if I am wrong; I'd love to know :D) Until comes an RFC which intentionally and reasonably drops an area for a later time but in doing so brings in a new feature that is not consistent with other parts of the software. Now we don't have the consistency which we used to have. I know it is supposed to be temporary but it doesn't make it less inconsistent! Then came a new RFC which is addressing an issue, which from a different point of view it could be regarded as fixing this inconsistency. Now, should we discard this issue and let the inconsistency creep into the system? What approaches are we employing for tackling these sorts of issues? Do we even care about that? :/ >From yet a different point of view, for users unaware of this inconsistency, it could easily waste their precious time. (Maybe seconds :D ; it doesn't make it less precious) PS: I'm not conveying anything here (:D). I am simply a curious person. I also know what feature freeze means and I'm all for it. :) Regards,
