It really depends on what the meaning of None is. OP's definition makes perfect sense if it means "unknown". Yours make sense if it means "zero", but that's far less useful. If it means "missing" - which is what the article says they wanted - then any operation involving None should be an error (but Some can still be handled automatically).

It can be interesting to see what other languages do in this situation. For example, C# got nullable value types in version 2, and had to decide what to do with operators in a similar vein (including pre-existing overloaded operators in user code) - they called it "lifting":

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-refe... https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-refe...

You might notice that it almost, but not quite, has consistent semantics: null means "unknown", which is particularly obvious from Booleans: (true | null) is true, and (false & null) is false, but (true & null) and (false | null) are both null. However, comparison operators aren't consistent: you'd expect x == null to be null if it meant "unknown", but the language will always give you either true or false; and ditto for relative comparisons. This last one means that it's possible for (x == y), (x < y), and (x > y) to all be false.

What's interesting is that, in practice, it's rare to see reliance on any of this behavior in idiomatic C# code - "null" is usually used as "missing", not as "unknown", so all this magic is, at best, irrelevant, and at worst, actively harmful (because it defers a logic error).