New getter syntax slightly ambiguous.

[peter-ahe-google]

I'm currently working on updating our tests to use the new getter syntax. I noticed this case:

class SubAbstract2 extends Abstract {
  abstract get x();
}

In the new syntax, this turns into:

class SubAbstract2 extends Abstract {
  abstract get x;
}

As far as I understand, the abstract keyword is going away, so it becomes:

class SubAbstract2 extends Abstract {
  get x;
}

This looks like a field declaration.

I don't care whether or not this is changed, I just want to bring it up as I'm not sure this was intentional.

[gbracha]

I think this is a matter for style guides: putting an abstract modifier might be optional, and recommended in a few cases such as this. I'll look into it.

---

Set owner to @gbracha.
Added Accepted label.

[gbracha]

Added this to the M1 milestone.

[gbracha]

Per the language meeting today, we will make the abstract modifier optional so as a matter of style people may choose to emphasize the abstractness.

[gbracha]

Added Done label.