Bob Nystrom
Bob Nystrom
> (though I wonder whether we should have a `...` pattern for records). Yeah, I had a TODO in the proposal for that. Lasse suggested not doing it because it...
> I wouldn't propose making this polymorphic. That is, `var (x : x, ...) = e` shouldn't work for all record types, only one specific concrete record type. e.g. if...
I'm closing this because I don't see a strong push to allow private field names, but feel free to re-open if you want.
Ugh, yeah. Honestly, I think the right thing is to print the fields and all of their names. Give the users what they want to see when they are debugging...
@mit-mit in principle, yes, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea. But it's always somewhat risky to have code that behaves one way when you run your tests...
Oof, maybe?
I think the lint is useful because it warns users away from a syntax that is confusing. Consider: ```dart var a = 1, b = 's'; ``` What is the...
Closing this. I think the answer is "no", we shouldn't lint destructuring a tuple literal in a variable initializer.
> > just embrace that nullable means optional > > But there are cases where this isn't the desired API. There are definitely cases where multiple distinct nulls would be...
I think I'm with @TimWhiting. I agree that sometimes user want an index in addition to the element with a `for-in` loop. Typically, I just write that like: ```dart var...