Tatumizer

> It will not introduce any new expressive power, since [if (e case p when e) ... else ...].first does precisely the same thing A nicer form of conditional expression...

> And then there is the complication of omitting a non-trailing positional argument. This is an intractable problem (semantic paradox), it cannot be solved without some restrictions, e.g. prohibiting conditionally...

This^ design proposal is similar to swift's [implicit member expressions](https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/documentation/the-swift-programming-language/expressions/#Implicit-Member-Expression), except that for "other operators", swift allows only a chain of *postfix operators*, which always starts with the `.id` member...

I think this kind of treatment simplifies design and simultaneously expands the scope of the feature. Suppose Foo is a context type. When the user, say, types `Foo foo =...

The "union of values" can be modelled as an enum: ```dart abstract class RawValue { T get rawValue; } enum Answer implements RawValue { one("one"), two("two"), three("three"); final String rawValue;...

> Better to say there are no constructors than change a constructor out from under you. This principle applies to every declaration. Changing *anything* from under you is equally problematic....