> It's easier and more natural to access the optional in an unsafe way (through the -> operator) than access it in the safe way (through `value()`); this is a w

> It's easier and more natural to access the optional in an unsafe way (through the -> operator) than access it in the safe way (through `value()`); this is a wrong default which should have been made the other way around. Then it's inconsistent with std::vector & similar. Consistency across the standard library seems much more worthwhile, especially here where it's pretty obvious when you mess up using a std::optional (like just never checking if it has a value, which jumps out in code reviews quite clearly)