Comment by xp84

I think anyone would agree with the “you’re doing something wrong” part, but if you declare that a property is typed and non-nullable, it would be nice if a constructor that didn’t populate its non-nullable properties would cause an exception to be thrown or something, as the constructor didn’t construct a valid object by its own specification. The wrongdoing was in the constructor so the constructor should be where that happens, not the innocent caller later who trusts the type definition.

Maybe it’s too impossible to do that, but the behavior described seems like it puts you right back in the world of completely dynamic anything-goes (PHP’s legacy, basically).

I thought part of the point of types was to give the caller confidence that simply accessing a typed property is guaranteed to return a certain type (null being a type that may be included).