Bob Nystrom

Here's a probably terrible idea: We could loosen the restriction that requires `part` and `part of` directives to be symmetric. A (likely generated) file could declare that it is a...

> 1. We don't define a new kind of constructors. There's no such thing as "in-body constructor" here. We keep using the old constructor syntax everyone is used to, just...

I don't currently have plans to do this, but I agree it is nice in some cases. I'll leave this open as an enhancement.

> It is possible to format the first line, like the second, without any problem. Why do they behave differently? In general, neither the old nor the new style have...

> Now there's no indent, and it is harder to read, especially when there are many fields like that. > > ```dart > class C { > final LoremIpsumDolorSitAmetFactory >...

I'm going to re-open this because users keep being surprised by this style, which suggests that maybe we should go back to indenting fields/variables if the type annotation splits. I'm...

Yeah, I think I just got this wrong when defining the new tall style. I'd like to circle back and tweak this, but there have been a *lot* of formatter...

I'm going to go ahead and close this because we've decided not to move ahead with macros and, even if we were to, I think we had pretty well settled...

This is a really compelling argument. You're right that it introduces a pointless asymmetry. With augmentations, the introductory declaration is just as incomplete as the augmenting ones. > Then there...

> The parts are symmetric, but we force you to move around a special (lack of a) marker when you move the first declaration. Thinking about this more, I'm not...