I want to talk about the recent change for the new syntax to get optional values (#8379)

There is one line in examples that confuses me :

{ foo: 123 }.bar?.baz # errors because `baz` is not present on the result from `bar?`

I think it should instead short circuit baz as bar is not required.

Let me explain :

In case I would do $var.bar?.baz, what I expect is bar is optional, but baz is required if bar is present.
In other words : "if, in $var, there is no bar, return null. Otherwise, in bar, if there is no baz, this time, i want to raise an error"
Here is an example :

{ foo: 123 }.bar?.baz            # no bar, bar is optional so returns null
{ bar: 123 }.bar?.baz            # bar exists but no baz in bar. As baz is required, it raise an error
{ bar: { baz: 123 } }.bar?.baz   # baz present in bar, returns 123
{ foo: 123 }.bar.baz?            # no bar, bar is required, raise an error
{ bar: 123 }.bar?.baz?           # bar exists but no baz in bar. As baz is optional, returns null

With the actual syntax, we are required to write $var.bar?.baz? to get a null if bar is not present. But no matter how, the current line always returns null, it doesn't raise any error.

My syntax I described above give much more flexibility on getting optional or required value

What do you think ?