@skade your opening response sets a very specific tone, making my very rare contribution immediately feel foolish. Secondly you clearly didn't read my post fully because I never proposed @ as the preferred case, so I'm not going to "answer" your points, I even liked your post like most others because the points make sense. All this while you "credential and argument bombed" me mostly on points that I weren't trying to make.
As you can see above I didn't even disagree with you that my post was fuzzy - I'm sorry for that, as a novice contributor its always intimidating to step forward. I'm asking questions as a background part of the community. Feedback was explicitly solicited by @withoutboats - this is what we're all trying to give to the project. If feedback just ruffles feathers then don't ask for feedback.
This is a bait-and-switch move that makes it seem like I'm trying to dismiss your experience, which I was not, the point stands, certain natural language rules even trip up grown-ups, but especially children, we don't have to fall into the same trap if we can avoid it. And just btw, the very first language I exposed my 10-year-old to was rust, I don't see why we can't teach kids rust - but that's a conversation for another day.
There's nothing to address, I don't owe you any answers, I was simply asking, originally, whether or not the Language Team also considered the impact on Learnability after we spent so many cycles on ergonomics and learnability.
You have successfully made this personal, I don't know if this is await fatigue or a general approach to feedback but the topic can be closed anyway because I'm convinced that very careful consideration was given, thus answering my original question.