> would have to be implemented with underlying standalone `Some` and `None` types, and that `Some` itself would still require an empty representation, which is

> would have to be implemented with underlying standalone `Some` and `None` types, and that `Some` itself would still require an empty representation, which is strange. It's not that strange. That's the normal way to model these things in OO languages, and while it's obviously not ideal, it's not completely awful either.