ssrmm

I also ran into what seems to be a very similar or even the same issue, I am seeing the exact same error messages in the following scenario: I have...

Something seems to have changed since recently. The behavior is now different for certain VS/.NET SDK versions. In those versions the minimal example I posted above does compile without errors....

@ArmanHayots I was thinking the same thing. Plus, the visual difference between two and three dots isn't all that big, promoting [Off-by-one errors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-by-one_error). `$[ .. )` and `$( .. ]`...

@qiru To my knowledge this feature does not yet exist, @ArmanHayots was merely suggesting an alternate syntax for your proposal. You should reopen this.

@qiru No problem 😄

The only workaround I've found so far is writing an extension method which does the `null`-checks and calling that method on the objet that is potentially `null`. However that's really...

I've originally been running this in the old visualizer, which didn't give me more information than the exception message. With the new visualizer I got the stacktrace from below. Also...

As a workaround one can write `syntax Expression = (Foo; !Any nl)+;`. This does not produce the error, but (according to my understanding) should be equivalent to the original rule.

For example this compiles fine: ```Nemerle using System.Console; namespace Test { public module Main { public Main() : void { mutable test1 = Test(1); def test2 = Test(2); test1 +=...

OK. Two things come to mind: 1. The error message should probably be more descriptive, like `error: Output dependent properties of a symbol cannot be assigned from a declaration` 2....