Not if I loosened the requirement. Stricter adherents shouldn't have to change anything. This is poor language ergonomics.
fn(a: int)
to fn(a: Option<int>)
?Technically, yes, all callers would have to update, but practically, you'd just define
fn(a: int) { fn_2(Some(a)) }
to avoid the breakage. That is, you're essentially telling the compiler how to loosen the requirements. Ergonomically, this seems rather fine. Especially if this means you gain (some) protections from the much more problematic case of restricting the requirements.