Lasse R.H. Nielsen

The behavior has been consistent since the dawn of Dart (at last since the removal of `interface` declarations), and I am genuinely impressed that it hasn't been a real issue...

That won't fix the problem for: ```dart class Optimist { final int _value; Optimist(this.value); Optimist operator+(Optimist other) => Optimist(_value, other._value); } ``` The `other._value` is the risky one, but it...

An external function is an abstract function signature with a marker saying that it's not actually abstract. It should be able to write anything that an abstract function signature can,...

It's working as designed, so it's not an SDK issue. Moving to language repo as a request to improve the inference. (I'm beginning to think we should always use the...

> A declaration of a function signature that it only seen by the static type system and doesn't create a thing you can call. And then there are external functions,...

> **Disagreed**. First note that we have already decided that they must be treated as separate functions rather than simply as compile-time references to other constructors: That doesn't mean it...

> which imply that this declaration has a behavior which is to invoke the redirectee passing on its formal parameters And that's what I disagree with. I think it should...

> This is the same thing as saying that "Dart should support testing whether an optional parameter was passed or not, and it should support optionally passing an optional parameter"....

Let me start more fundamentally with where I'm coming from. I take it as given that **default values are not part of the public API of a function**. When I...

And I guess that means I am OK with redirecting factory constructors having the ability to specify the default value. That's not the cause of any of the problems that...