Rearrange `linter_level=` in our code.

[AshesITR]

I'm not a fan of this style, WDYT about rearranging instead:

Linter(linter_level = "expression", function(source_expression) {
  ...
})

Originally posted by @MichaelChirico in #2352 (comment)

[IndrajeetPatil]

If we are open to making formatting changes for readability, I actually prefer the following style over inlining because it visually separates the function name from its argument in the function call:

Linter(
  linter_level = "expression", 
  function(source_expression) {
  ...
  }
)

This way, I also don't need to parse the commas to separate where one parameter and its argument begins and ends, and the next one starts:

Linter <- function(fun, name = linter_auto_name(), linter_level = c(NA_character_, "file", "expression")) { 
  ...
}

Linter <- function(fun, 
                   name = linter_auto_name(), 
                   linter_level = c(NA_character_, "file", "expression")) { 
  ...
}

[MichaelChirico]

I don't like that because it increases nesting by a lot -- it will add thousands of whitespace characters to our codebase with IMO pretty minimal readability improvement.

[IndrajeetPatil]

Fair enough. But the whitespace changes will be minimal if this change is restricted only to function signatures, right?
Not saying we need to make that change, but just trying to understand what's the path of least friction if one were to introduce this change.

[MichaelChirico]

Fair enough. But the whitespace changes will be minimal if this change is restricted only to function signatures, right? Not saying we need to make that change, but just trying to understand what's the path of least friction if one were to introduce this change.

the suggested change for function signature I'm ok with, my pushback is only for the Linter() call indentation