fslang-suggestions VS fslang-design

Trying to extend this https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-suggestions/issues/1089 to have two generics:

Basically, what I've made in Spiral. There is even a F# issue to improve the syntax.

Not currently supported but it's an open language suggestion that's likely to end up in F#. https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-suggestions/issues/506

Re: the argument accessor shorthand, there seems to be a proposal for exactly that (using _ instead of &): https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-suggestions/issues/506#issu...

I found this post (https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-suggestions/issues/975) which is about the same thing, but I'm confused as to what the final resolution was. There was mention of a taskSeq, but I can't find much info on that.

An issue in FSharp suggestions

F# doesn’t currently seem to support source generators.

"Blessed" literals: only FSharp.List and System.Array have a built-in collection syntax in the language ([ ] and [| |]). Only FSharp.List has a special pattern matching constructor (::). The language itself shouldn't favor a particular type over another: it should be possible, at the library level, to write the same code but using different collection types (related discussion here).

I mostly write F# so I can only speak for F#, but if you want you can create a module which extends Seq to add the OCaml names. I suspect the same is possible in OCaml. The authors are not trying to impede compatibility, but compatibility is not a goal. If you value compatibility, or adhering to ML norms, and you use F#, I recommend you (kindly) advocate for it in relevant issues on the F# language discussion repo. https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-suggestions/issues

The C# compiler got a ton of new smarts around reference type nullability and almost all of the BCL (.NET standard library) got annotated for it. I don't know when F# will finally pick up all the new compile-time smarts for Nullable Reference Types, but it has been proposed and prototyped, at least [1].

[1] https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-design/blob/main/RFCs/FS-10...

Note: For some reason I cant submit the Url with the specific section of the Drawbacks section, but it is here https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-design/blob/main/FSharp-7.0...

Does type provider still only support literal strings for definition, right? Supporting records could make it feasible to create something really good as just a side project. I remember suggestions to allow taking record/types but can't find the gh issue or related. Found the rfc. Seems abandoned. It could be a game changer. :(

But, when I try this example from the RFC, I get an "expected option but here has type voption" error.

Add insert/remove/update functions for collections, also Keys/Values for Map

This is https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-design/blob/main/RFCs/FS-1079-union-properties-visible.md

Someone writes an RFC about the approved-in-principle suggestion with more details and opens a pull request to https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-design.