Paul Berry

> > > * We wouldn't be doing the "level 1" part of Leaf's proposal ("Allow property accesses to final fields (private or not) on private non-escaping classes to promote")....

Yeah, this is a known limitation of type promotion. When it sees an anonymous function, it makes a pretty conservative assumption about what might happen to any variables that anonymous...

FWIW, you can work around this limitation by creating a temporary variable that's never written to: ```dart int foo({int? arg}) { arg = 0; var tmp = arg; return (()...

> The current implementations seem to accept UTF-8 encoded source code, that is, pure 7 bit ASCII for everything other than string literals, and UTF-8 in string literals. Minor nit:...

Crazy random idea: what if the syntax for positional field accessors is simply the `[]` operator applied to an integer literal? E.g.: ```dart (int, String) a = (3, 'foo'); var...

Hmm, I feel like I can come up with compelling arguments either way. On the one hand, consider this code, which attempts to test the pattern `(a, b)` against a...

Here's another random idea: - Go ahead and change the spec text to `if the static type of v is a subtype of`, so that `(a, b)` is considered refutable...

I don't really have any facts to add to the arguments presented above, but just for the record here's some opinions 😄: Personally I'm a fan of @lrhn's `o ==...

> If it were up to me, I'd probably say use `scrutinee == constant` and take the breaking change. It seems like the simplest, most explainable semantics. If we were...

> I'm actually not convinced of that. I'm actually pretty highly confident that there is more likely to be an entry in Dart Puzzlers that looks like `switch (thingOfTypeDynamic) case...