Cole Tobin

Also of note, the `` tags are not typeset correctly in the popover.

@scott-parkhill Apparently, their [documentation overlay parser](https://github.com/OmniSharp/omnisharp-vscode/blob/d1785942e51f3afee1d8e62b406ee46b35168c63/src/features/documentation.ts) only cares about `` and nothing else. That file hasn't been touched in two years.

This issue was making me tear my hair out the past few days

The issue is how the weaver replaces field assignments with `set_X` calls in the constructor. For example, in my program, the weaver was generating [this IL](https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/61055#issuecomment-1113847592=): ``` IL_007f: ldarg.0 //...

My guess is: because the `Nullable` is being assigned with the default value, there's no `stfld` opcode generated, but the weaver just grabbed the first opcode of any type where...

It seems the compiler special cases `Nullable` to not generate a `stfld` opcode when set to `null`. In fact, this code: ```cs using System; public class Program { public Nullable...

Changing the `record` type to a `class` type with public getters and setters (obviously) fixes the exception.

The emission of the `pop` opcode is indeed happening inside XamlX: https://github.com/kekekeks/XamlX/blob/d990d63774a04d2a4b3d52e626a90ee68e19e2b6/src/XamlX/IL/XamlILEmitterExtensions.cs#L23-L24 ```cs if (swallowResult && !(method.ReturnType.Namespace == "System" && method.ReturnType.Name == "Void")) emitter.Pop(); ```

Ah, that would explain why there's a setter. You're right about them being modifiable; a `record` is supposed to be immutable (barring tricks like reflection). For me, I don't think...

I see the PR in XamlX has been merged. Should we close this now?