DO type annotate fields ... bad example

[srawlins]

The bad example, and the first example, under "DO type annotate fields and top-level variables if the type isn't obvious
" use a method, and don't contain a field or top-level variable anywhere.

And none of the text in the rule can really apply to methods, unless you maybe count a method with an expression body (=> ...) as "having" an "obvious type".

[srawlins]

Or looked at the other way, maybe the method example, specifically the return type, hints that the text of the rule should be changed to include methods ("DO type annotate fields, top-level variables, enum values, functions, methods, constructors, and typedefs ...")

[antfitch]

What would an ideal example look like? Can you add that here?

[srawlins]

We could use pretty simple fields like:

// BAD
var setting = defaultSetting;

// GOOD
String setting = defaultSetting;

The "if the type isn't obvious" component does make for a tricky simple example. The value on the right could be something like importedValue or complicated.expression(with, arguments);.

I would defer to @munificent or @natebosch as to whether the rule should be changed to fit the examples.