Tomas Grosup

> Would it make sense to nudge the CI here and maybe look into adjustments in dotnet/fsharp that would make it easy to test the preview compiler? I think it...

Due to the nature of the issues, even two different legs I assume: - download published F#+ from nuget, and run a battery of samples using preview compiler against it...

This one I assume? https://github.com/dotnet/fsharp/pull/5878/files Understandably, there has been pushback on the consequences of such CI leg failing, especially if caused by a F#+ change added since last run(even when...

I agree to that. The compiler codebase would only need to know your repo URL, specific commit, and which script/command to execute. That way, if F#+ pivots this, same mechanism...

I am marking this as approved in principle for preprocessor regularity with C#. The detailed proposal should enumerate potential impact on commonly used F# tooling, e.g. on Fantomas. (breaking existing...

This might be handy: https://github.com/dotnet/arcade/issues/15019#issuecomment-2414604972

This issue is correct - the examples does not prove much about nominality. With regular records, the nominality comes from the fully qualified name. For anonymous records, nominality is from...

F#9 did have big improvements in attribute targets, which would fail with this - I guess the expectation is to annotate the function like a method, but the runtime representation...

This is the code snippet from the attached project: ```fsharp let foo items = for (a,b,c) in items do printfn "%A" (a, c) [] let main args = foo ({1..10}...

Woule a solution be to treat it on par with static constructors of regular types? What I am afraid is that we would need to guard around this in optimizations,...