>if the ? operator existed since the beginning, it would be seen as "too much magic" [...] That is, there's a path dependence, where the existence of try!() mad

>if the ? operator existed since the beginning, it would be seen as "too much magic" [...] That is, there's a path dependence, where the existence of try!() made the ? operator viable. Yes, C++ creator Bjarne Stroustrup made a similar observation: - For new features, people insist on LOUD explicit syntax. - For established features, people want terse notation. There seems to be an invisible "Overton Window" of evolving programming language features and syntax.