Luis Ferrao

I fixed my issue, turns out there was a syntax error in the directive declaration, I'll leave this open in case someone wants to convert it to a bug. ```gql...

Hi @xperiandri, is there any plan that you're aware of for UWP to support .NET 5?

Couldn't you use the [older version](https://www.nuget.org/packages/FSharp.ValidationBlocks/) until UWP/Uno support the new .Net? The functionality is the same, only the API is slightly different. You can get a sense of the...

I like this idea, it could be handled with the validation definition returning a discriminated union instead of a list of errors. I'm not sure however that it would be...

Right now type definitions don't support custom input processing, so you have to use `Block.verbatim` next to your own processing function, which can still be defined with the type itself...

Interesting, I haven't thought about this but it seems pretty easy to implement unless there's something I haven't considered, I'll definitely take a look at it at the same time...

I found a workaround to my problem by limiting the block types to blocks of non-DU types, which I think it's an ok compromise since 99% of the time people...

@alfonsogarciacaro it'll help if we also get the following, first four seem to work according to tests, not sure if it's possible for the last two: ✅ Type.MakeGenericType ✅ GetGenericArguments...

Absolutely! I know exactly which method I need at compile time, the only reason I need reflection is because it's a static method of a genetic type that I need...

@alfonsogarciacaro This is the one thing I didn't find a workaround for, I ended up publishing the library without one of its functions and added this note to the [demo...