Omar Kamel

This seems totally unnecessary. We already have reasonable ways to process items. ```dart var x = 0, y =1; (x, y) = process(x, y); // Or var pair = (0,...

this... seems unecessary? you can already just define factory or static methods or otherwise just... ```dart class Outer { // riverpod does this static const inner = Inner.new; // or...

I think we *really* dont want to start adding class nesting for the same reason we extract widgets instead of having one massive widget with a massive horizontal scroll. Additionally,...

> The `Outer`/`Inner` example doesn't work as a constructor unless `Inner` implements `Outer`. In neither case can you nest the actual _type_. > > Consider an example like > >...

I also dont understand "nested extensions" your claim that "Might as well allow the nested types declaration directly then." doesnt make much sense either as thats not reason enough to...

> Is being able to define a function inside a function a recipe for bad code? Not inherently, but it's also very different. even if you couldnt do that, you...

Wouldn't it be simpler to simply expand access to const, and (less simply) just give access to reflection there and only there? like: ```dart // figure out how to mark...

I kind of liked the idea of literally incomplete functions. ```dart abstract class Foo { // Subclasses don't need to implement it, known for a fact. String bar() =>; }...

> If you use `String bar() =>;` and that requires the member to be augmented, then that implementation option goes away No, it just requires that it be implemented. That...

That's not a bad point. Having an annotation we can opt into using could be enough. That said, we don't need to introduce new keywords if we reuse `late` Plus,...