Suggestion: should non-null assert propagate?

I was wondering whether ! should be taken into account by the dataflow analysis, and I don't see why it shouldn't.

It is like a cast that says "this value is not null", so from this point I guess the compiler could remove undefined/null from future uses.

For example, I use ! to work around #9631, so I have code that looks like (simplified):

protected dataArrayChanged(changes: ChangeRecord[]) {
  // #9631: TS incorrectly infers `change: ChangeRecord | undefined`
  for (const change of changes) {
    for (let i = 0; i < change!.removed.length; i++)
      this.dt.row(i).remove();
    if (change!.addedCount > 0)
      this.dt.rows.add(this.data.slice(change!.index, change!.index + change!.addedCount));
  }
  this.dt.draw();
}

Observe how I added 5 ! to make change not null.
The first one could have been enough. After all, once I say "change is not undefined", there is no reason to assume it could be until I modify the variable again.

// Let's say I know x is not undefined
const x: number | undefined;
// Here x: number | undefined, so x! is required
x!.toString();
// Here x: number because of x! above
x.toString(); // ok

Inizia esaminando il comportamento dell’analisi del flusso di dati descritto in questo issue e il contesto correlato in #9631. Riproduci gli esempi che coinvolgono non-null assertions ripetute e determina la semantica di propagazione prevista. Il lavoro è completato quando il comportamento è stato risolto in modo coerente ed è coperto da test appropriati del compilatore.