Phil Quitslund

> It is linted only if the boolean operator is &&. @alexeieleusis : are you working on extending it? Thanks!

NP. Thanks!

Sorry, yes. I should have said "details to follow" after some research. This is just a placeholder for now.

For more context, `strings` as referenced above is a holder for String constants that are built up (@jefflim-google correct me if I'm wrong) with calls to `Intl.message` that look like...

Thanks @jefflim-google! My preference would be to generalize this as much as possible. To that end, @bwilkerson and I were chatting about how annotations might help here and we came...

Restricting the lint to flag invocations (and allow references) seems fine to me. In case you are holding onto function references, you'll want to annotate `lookup` itself as well. @bwilkerson...

FWIW initial analysis support was added in: https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/commit/1e2772d10662d5d060666a522e6af81dc8af2e04. Follow-ups tracked in: https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/issues/42497.

Interesting idea! Another possible refinement to `avoid_positional_boolean_parameters` would be to allow single argument lists but disallow all others. For example: ```dart setState(false); ``` feels better than: ```dart setState('alert', false); ```...

Thanks for chiming in Bob! > Personally, I think it's probably just simpler to not lint this case at all than to try to add increasingly subtle lints to trace...

Unless there's push-back, I'm in favor of bumping to "complain on 2+ positional booleans" and will likely go for it. Do chime in if any of you hold reservations!