This is a follow-up to #8379 and #8502.

This PR makes it so that the new ? syntax for marking a path member as optional short-circuits, as voted on in the 8502 poll. Previously, { foo: 123 }.bar?.baz would raise an error:

> { foo: 123 }.bar?.baz
  × Data cannot be accessed with a cell path
   ╭─[entry #15:1:1]
 1 │ { foo: 123 }.bar?.baz
   ·                   ─┬─
   ·                    ╰── nothing doesn't support cell paths
   ╰────

Here's what was happening:

1. The bar? path member access returns nothing because there is no field named bar on the record
2. The baz path member access fails when trying to access a baz field on that nothing value

After this change, { foo: 123 }.bar?.baz returns nothing; the failed bar? access immediately returns nothing and the baz access never runs.