[Types\to] `:null`-ish parameters should be optional when converting from `:dictionary` to `:object`

[RickBarretto]

Summary

When converting :dictionary to :object, parameters that may be :null should be optional

Current Behavior

$> define :example [required :string optional :string :null]

$> inspect to :example #[required: "Some value" optional: "I'm here just because yes"]
[ :example
        required  :        Some value :string
        optional  :        I'm here just because yes :string
]

$> inspect to :example #[required: "Some value"]

══╡ Value Error ╞══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ <repl> ══

  Cannot initialize object of type: 
      :example

  Wrong number of parameters:
      1

  Expected:
      2 required, optional

Expected Behavior

$> define :example [required :string optional :string :null]

$> inspect to :example #[required: "Some value" optional: "I'm here just because yes"]
[ :example
        required  :        Some value :string
        optional  :        I'm here just because yes :string
]

$> inspect to :example #[required: "Some value"]
[ :example
        required  :        Some value :string
        optional  :        null :null
]

Steps To Reproduce

No response

OS

Windows 11

Version

arturo 0.10.0 Arizona Bark (amd64/windows)

Anything else?

Issue reported from official Arturo's VS Code extension.

• VS Code: Visual Studio Code 1.109.3 / Extension: v0.9.1

Is there an existing issue for this?

• I have searched the existing issues

[drkameleon]

That's an interesting one. I'd have to think about this.

Something feels slightly off in the sense that e.g. if an object is initialized via array it would still enforce complete strictness (n other way around), so we'd end up with the two things behaving slightly... inconsistently or magically. Also, it would add an extra layer of complexity where, instead of just the names, we'd have to be checking the values (if any) of the params - this information, if I'm not mistaken, serves initially just to embed the pertinent checks, but I'd have to look even if we have this readily available.

Either way, interesting point to think about!