Nate Bosch

> 2\. Also specify that an optimizing compiler may choose to eliminate the field names. Can we also specify that it may choose to eliminate field values?

My intuition is that this feature would make users less confused than they would be without it. I'd be inclined to push on it, especially if we think we can...

Here are two patterns that I think may be common: ```dart if (x?.hasSomeField == true) { doSomething(x.someField); } ``` ```dart if (x?.hasSomeField ?? false) { doSomething(x.someField); } ``` The latter...

I have wanted a syntax for iterable literals like this in the past. I think it fits well with enhanced collection literals and would let us write more code to...

> My intuition is that lazy iterable are rare enough that they probably don't warrant dedicated syntax (especially given the opportunity cost of using that syntax on something more common)....

> At the point that we want to put together a deep link, do we have the vm service uri for the running test? Yes. We have the VM service...

It would be better if we supported renames for `@JS()` members but I don't think that is getting active work. https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/issues/39056 I agree that the lint should allow these cases...

I wasn't aware that DartDoc was the primary motivation for the lint. I lean towards allowing renaming unused parameters to `_`, but I don't have very strong opinions.

I'm having trouble with this lint. I don't see any of the `ImplicitCallReference` nodes that I expect. Testing this locally requires a dependency override on `analyzer` with https://dart-review.googlesource.com/c/sdk/+/254465 The reason...

@bwilkerson - do you expect that an expression like `Callable() as Function` should get a `ImplicitCallReference` node in the AST? I can see that we [check whether to insert an...