Lasse R.H. Nielsen

It is slightly different from `super`, which is also not an expression, but also very similar. I think people have generally accepted that `super` is not an expression, and `super...

I think the syntax came from a similarity to `super`. Maybe that was a red herring. Function call syntax can work for operators. It's even better than `augmented == x`...

I'd be fine with `augmented(value)` for setters too, but I think using `=` is probably more directly understandable for users. (I don't see a *big* difference between having special syntax...

Which means that "path restriction" we semi-agreed to in the language-team meating is too strict if it also applies to macro-generated part files. And if it's a language feature, it...

SGTM. It shouldn't change anything for the model exposed to macros, it's just that the augmented declaration it can reflect on is not (necessarily) the *completely* augmented declaration. Also worth...

I ususally say that the only code which can see the result of a *partial augmentation application* (a base with some, but not all, augmentations applied) is the next augmentation...

Allowing omitting values from enums is tricky, because an enum value declaration can look like a function declaration: ```dart enum Baz with Qux { // Banana! foo(x); final int x;...

It's not unavoidable, but it gets harder to parse when the thing inside the pattern can be either a destructuring or a an assignable expression. Currently the only assignable expressions...

Still not sure I understand the desired behavior completely. The macro will require that some member declaration to already exists. Is that *all* it does, or does it also do...

For now, I'd also keep both the enhanced-parts and the augmentation features as part of a single "augmentations" launch. Do we have a separate experiment flag for augmentations, or is...