> I know of no proposal that advocates only (A). It seems that we are agreed
> that we must make use of types to disambiguate common cases.
I will try to make the case for (A), just so it has been put on the table.
I think the point is more that, given (b), (a) is seen to be redundant. Which I don't understand; seems to me that, in the context of (b), it's a way to easily provide more information to the type inferencer (which, given that (b) adds more complexity to the inferencer, looks like a way to control that complexity in practice) without hardcoding a type.