From @masak

<flussence> r​: multi sub infix​:<~eq>(Str $a, Str $b) { uc $a eq uc $b
}; say 'Foo' ~eq 'foo'
<p6eval> rakudo d61049​: OUTPUT«===SORRY!===␤CHECK FAILED​:␤Undefined
routine '&eq' called (line 1)␤»
<tadzik> probably gets parsed as 'Foo' ~ eq('foo')
<PerlJam> sounds like a failure of LTM
<tadzik> aye
<masak> it does.
<masak> r​: multi sub infix​:<$$$>($a, $b) {}; say 1 $$$ 1
<p6eval> rakudo d61049​: OUTPUT«Nil␤»
<masak> hm, seems that Rakudo recognizes new infix operators without a problem.
<masak> r​: multi sub infix​:<+->($a, $b) { 42 }; say 1 +- 1
<p6eval> rakudo d61049​: OUTPUT«0␤»
<tadzik> LTA LTM
<masak> but longest doesn't win if it's user-defined.
* masak submits rakudobug

From @jnthn

On Fri May 11 10​:03​:47 2012, masak wrote​:

<flussence> r​: multi sub infix​:<~eq>(Str $a, Str $b) { uc $a eq uc $b
}; say 'Foo' ~eq 'foo'
<p6eval> rakudo d61049​: OUTPUT«===SORRY!===␤CHECK FAILED​:␤Undefined
routine '&eq' called (line 1)␤»
<tadzik> probably gets parsed as 'Foo' ~ eq('foo')
<PerlJam> sounds like a failure of LTM
<tadzik> aye
<masak> it does.
<masak> r​: multi sub infix​:<$$$>($a, $b) {}; say 1 $$$ 1
<p6eval> rakudo d61049​: OUTPUT«Nil␤»
<masak> hm, seems that Rakudo recognizes new infix operators without a
problem.
<masak> r​: multi sub infix​:<+->($a, $b) { 42 }; say 1 +- 1
<p6eval> rakudo d61049​: OUTPUT«0␤»
<tadzik> LTA LTM
<masak> but longest doesn't win if it's user-defined.
* masak submits rakudobug

Now works thanks to using QRegex for parsing​:

multi sub infix​:<~eq>(Str $a, Str $b) { uc($a) eq uc($b) }; say 'Foo'
~eq 'foo'
True

(Note, original code got precedence wrong.)

Tagging testneeded.

/jnthn

The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

From @moritz

Now tested in S06-operator-overloading/sub.t.

@moritz - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved'