Gustavo Leon

Done, thank you both for the quick feedback.

Is this approved? I think it's important not to disable warnings unintentionally. Maybe something like: #nowarn "44" ... #endnowarn "44" or just: #nowarn "44" ... #warn "44"

Having to disable many potential warnings in order to address a single one is an issue and AFAIK there is no workaround it. I'm currently being impacted by this issue...

This is approved in principle so I guess someone have to draft an RFC.

@abelbraaksma see @robkuz did already an example ;) @robkuz I would love to, but that would ago against the specs (not just F# spec, also C# and possibly other langs)...

Sure, let's leave it open to make it as default. Anyway I'm not 100% it would be a breaking change, because not having it normally leads to the ambiguos overload...

An easy example, all generic applicatives and monads require a set of overloads, based solely on the return type. See [here]( https://github.com/fsprojects/FSharpPlus/blob/33fa3411cb080fc70d8b4ad4f71e16d63bc82128/src/FSharpPlus/Functor.fs#L98-L138) an example. A more complex scenario: many overloaded...

@replicaJunction to be more precise, in your specific case it would force the user to annotate the resulting type in order to solve the ambiguity, that's where it might break...

@abelbraaksma I was talking on the assumption of having this suggestion in place. > Strangely enough, it is possible to create such methods (in C# this is forbidden, I believe)....

Shame @abelbraaksma I was curious about it. @replicaJunction some days ago after a discussion with @ninofloris he came up with a kind of pattern to define a default in absence...