Mateus Felipe C. C. Pinto

> (We'd probably still want to disallow declaring the same variable more than once in the same scope, although nothing prevents allowing that, with each introducing a new scope.) Basically,...

> In my opinion it brings little value, but greatly decreases code readability. You never know, where the dotted member comes from. > > Consider: > > ```dart > SomeWidget(...

Sure, you would have to know whether `SomeWidget` accepts `MyColor`, `MaterialColor` or `CupertinoColor`. Personally, I don't see this as a huge disadvantage, and you can always use the full reference....

> Wouldn't it be clearer to say `getIntegers() ?? (null, null)`? It's only practical when you want to default to `null`. It gets cumbersome when you are dealing with more...

> Could also be used for map entries: > > ``` > ... case {"key"??: p} > ``` > > This would match even if there was no `"key"` entry,...

> As much as this "could be handled by a package", right now the ecosystem is fragmented because it is being handled by packages, and each package is making their...

> there are multiple packages on pub with exactly this There shouldn't be. We should strive to be consistent in using exceptions instead of building an inconsistent ecosystem that uses...

Does this solves your problem? ```dart var x = switch ((a, b)) { (> 0, _) => 1, (_, < 10) => 2, _ => 3, }; ```

Ruby's ranges can be both inclusive (`..`) and exclusive (`...`), but I think we could survive without the exclusive variation.

> Using `0:10` for the range is a problem if you want a set of ranges, because `{0:10}` is a map, not a set with a range. ("All the good...