Skip to content

Fix #4652: allow augmenting setters to choose parameter name #4663

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
Darkildo wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+3 −2
Open

Fix #4652: allow augmenting setters to choose parameter name #4663

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
5 changes: 3 additions & 2 deletions working/augmentations/feature-specification.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -839,8 +839,9 @@ It's a **compile-time** error if:
For purposes of augmentation, a variable declaration is treated as implicitly
defining a getter whose return type is the type of the variable. If the variable
is not `final`, or is `late` without an initializer, then the variable
declaration also implicitly defines a setter with a parameter named `_` whose
type is the type of the variable.
declaration also implicitly defines a setter with a single required positional
parameter whose type is the type of the variable. The variable declaration does
not determine the name of that parameter.

@eernstg eernstg May 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think you may have been OOO at the time, but the ability to use a parameter declaration whose name is specified as _ to mean "I don't care" was reintroduced with #4669 and #4670. It should not be necessary to introduce the notion of "does not determine the name" for a parameter declaration.

I don't think it actually creates any problems with the specification to rely on "does not determine the name", but it seems simpler to rely on the ability of _ to do the same thing, now that this feature has been restored.


If the variable is `abstract`, then the getter and setter are incomplete,
otherwise they are complete. *For non-abstract variables, the compiler
Expand Down