Gábor Csárdi

I think you only need to document the return twice if you don't run `argufy` on the function. If you run `argufy`, then `@return` is fine and `argufy` takes out...

How about capturing the arguments of `?` as expressions, i.e. `substitute()` ? Then you can see what the arguments are, and choose accordingly. This does not sound too difficult, but...

Awesome! I think it is great! Can you just update the PR and merge it?

Or the PR is probably OK, only this comment is not true any more? https://github.com/gaborcsardi/argufy/pull/20/files#diff-951791f1fb37d9e5b0f0cf852ce38d83R70

Yeah, I agree, the two ? version is better.

Yes, I agree that we could support required and not required arguments as well, although I am often annoyed by functions that use `missing(...)` because it is hard to use...

Skipping this for now, will come back to it later.

Yes, the current approach is not great, and maybe it should let you simply pass in a handle for a request. OTOH, an easier fix might be to add a...

Maybe `form_data` is enough for now? Thanks!

Yes, sorry. `falsy` is kind of dangerous (See https://github.com/gaborcsardi/falsy#warnings), and since no other packages depended on it, I took it down. I found it that I usually just define `"%||%"