Omar Kamel

i think that `new()` is just not a good fit for dart, since we'd have `.new()` anyway. it would be redundant and confusing. People would wonder what the difference is,...

I disagree. There comes a point where we go past being concice and get too close to ambiguity. A period is a rather tiny character. Without it, we have a...

> I think that's exagerrated. As I mentioned before, there are a bunch of related features with a similar syntax, like: > > ```dart > switch (person) { > case...

> > A period is a rather tiny character. Without it, we have a record instead, which can cause significant confusion, and makes grok-ing harder, because now you have to...

> To me it sounds like that the problem is with `.` instead of just having a shorter `.new` syntax. > > The syntax could very well be `_()`: >...

What if generators accepted the analysis result for the file only? ie, that just that compilation unit (if I understand it right) then, we also say that generators are not...

The fact of the matter is, we *need* type information. its not possible to write good, reliable generators without it. we want users to be able to use normal dart...

> > why? the information is there, lets get it > > Where "there"? "There" is a function of time. E.g. a macro handling class A wants to know if...

> > With augments, there's plan to support augmentations to add other augmentations. So you could have an infinite number of "stages" > > My internal "complexity indicator" flashes red...

I'm not particularly hung up on any particular syntax, so sure, make it a special class. I'm not sure why you're obfuscating return types - existing generators require the "actual...