Bob Nystrom

> This is not a problem when adding the first type parameter: Technically, it can be a problem here too if the first type parameter has a bound that inference...

I don't think we want users to have to write an explicit *version*, but, yes, we have talked about the capability to opt in to the new style while still...

There are two separate questions in your example: 1. When should the formatter split after `=>`? 2. When should the formatter split before `..`? When I try the new formatter...

Now that #1687 is in, the formatter gives you: ```dart map( (innerMap) => innerMap..addAll({ 'something': someMap['something'], //... }), ); ``` It's not quite as short as the old short style...

Yeah, the formatter is intended to be idempotent. But, unfortunately, I've never been able to figure out a way to systematically *ensure* that it is in all cases. We do...

I'm coming at this a little cold and forgive me if this is too tangential: > ```dart > extension E on Map { > factory Map.bar(S x, T y) =>...

> we might want to introduce some other way to request the implicit provision of a bunch of forwarding constructors I'm not opposed to that, but I honestly wouldn't lose...

> if you also have a way to programmatically decide whether to pass an argument or not, without requiring a combinatorial explosion of individual call expressions. Control flow in argument...

Oh, yes, agreed that `?` is probably not the right syntax.

> I have some concerns about performance / code size implications associated with this mechanism as it is proposed: there is an invisible cost (both in terms of performance and...