Use FSharp.Core 6.0.1 instead of 6.0.2, lowest denominator approach for versions #123
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This was referenced Dec 10, 2022
abelbraaksma
changed the title
|
Will be part of 0.3.1 or 0.4.0. We probably go for 0.4.x though, as technically this is potentially a breaking change (it shouldn't be, but it is hard to ascertain). Edit: released in 0.4.0-alpha.1. |
abelbraaksma
added
the
compatibility
This was referenced Apr 5, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes: #121.
Just running full CI to see what happens.All tests pass just fine. Let's downgrade the lowest supported FSharp.Core.dll version.Note that we cannot go all the way to 6.0.0, unless we write the
taskSeqoverload code such that we don't useNoEagerConstraintApplication. This means either marker interfaces, or explicits (i.e., require users to doTask.ofAsyncand the like). I'm fine with using this approach though, as it behaves closer to howtaskbehaves.