So, how does that relate to this quote from the article?
>ty, on the other hand, follows a different mantra: the gradual guarantee. The principal idea is that in a well-typed program, removing a type annotation should not cause a type error. In other words: you shouldn’t need to add new types to working code to resolve type errors.
It seems like `ty`'s current behaviour is compatible with this, but changing it won't (unless it will just be impossible to type a list of different types).
