Don Syme
Don Syme
> ...generative type providers... TBH I think erased type provides are also pretty feasible - see notes above on FSharp.Data today.
Linking this: https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-suggestions/issues/919#issuecomment-1136951429
@0101 asked what next steps should be here I think the first thing to determine is "does it matter if some things in FSharp.Core use reflection, and what should we...
> I guess there are several parts of this - reflection-free codegen by compiler itself ("%A", quotations, dynamic imlpementations, etc), reducing/reviewing reflection in FSharp.Core and making FSharp.Core adjustments for easier...
@jkotas Thank you!! It makes me curious if some of FSharp.Reflection.FSharpType and FSharp.Reflection.FSharpValue will also work. @jkotas Is `MakeGenericType` considered unreferenced code in all circumstances?
You need `#i "nuget: ..."`, see https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/tools/fsharp-interactive/#specifying-a-package-source
I'll reopen as I think the thing is specifically about relative paths. But we need a correct repro for this please
The proposed policy seems spot on
Looks like this involves interop with methods that have both omitted optional arguments **and** ParamArray arguments: ``` BeEquivalentTo(class [Newtonsoft.Json]Newtonsoft.Json.Linq.JToken expected, [opt] string because, object[] becauseArgs) cil managed ```
Yes, this should compile, thanks for the report