From @masak

r30750​:
$ ./perl6 -e '1 ?? 2 : 3'
ResizablePMCArray​: Can't pop from an empty array!
[...]

Yes, it should be ?? !!, so the program above shouldn't compile. On
the other hand, it shouldn't throw an exception either.

<pmichaud> It's okay to report the ?? : bug, although it's really a
PGE bug and might not be fixed
<masak> pmichaud​: ok
<pmichaud> (i.e., it'll get subsumed by the other PGE changes)
<masak> I can see how it's now high prio, but it might be nice to have
a ticket for it
<pmichaud> sure.
<pmichaud> Currently ?? !! is being handled by PGE's ternary​: class,
but STD.pm has it as an infix operator
<pmichaud> which works fine, but I just haven't gotten around to
switch rakudo's grammar for that yet. Maybe a ticket will prompt
someone else to do it :-)

From @ilyabelikin

Hi there!

1 ?? 2 :​: 3;
ResizablePMCArray​: Can't pop from an empty array!

I think not only I can use '​::' instead '!!', so I like to see some
usefull error message if that is possiable.

Thank you!

Ilya

From @moritz

Rakudo 8e0b7409d757fa938f0a3176a192291a8e9e3996​:
$ perl6 -e '1 ?? 1;'
ResizablePMCArray​: Can't pop from an empty array!
in Main (src/gen_setting.pm​:3369)

(PGE bug?)

STD.pm says​:
  Found ?? but no !!; possible precedence problem at ...

Cheers,
Moritz

From @jnthn

Merging two tickets that identify the same underlying problem.

From @moritz

Now says "Confused", which is much better, but still less-than-awesome

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

From @coke

On Fri Apr 02 04​:37​:41 2010, moritz wrote​:

Now says "Confused", which is much better, but still less-than-awesome

Here's the output from STD for comparison​:

01​:28 <[Coke]> std​: 1 ?? 1;
01​:28 <p6eval> std 625303c​: OUTPUT«===SORRY!===â�¤Found ?? but no !! at
  /tmp/2ppTji_PsG line 1​:â�¤------> 1 ?? 1â��;â�¤Confused at
  /tmp/2ppTji_PsG line 1​:â�¤------> 1 ?? 1â��;â�¤ expecting prefix or
  termâ�¤Parse failedâ�¤FAILED 00​:01 119mâ�¤Â»
01​:28 <[Coke]> std​: 1 ?? 2 : 3
01​:28 <p6eval> std 625303c​: OUTPUT«===SORRY!===â�¤Please use !! rather than : at
  /tmp/7j5tGYT8Bh line 1​:â�¤------> 1 ?? 2 :â�� 3â�¤Parse failedâ�¤FAILED
  00​:01 119mâ�¤Â»

--
Will "Coke" Coleda

From @tadzik

On Sun Jan 30 22​:29​:08 2011, coke wrote​:

On Fri Apr 02 04​:37​:41 2010, moritz wrote​:

Now says "Confused", which is much better, but still less-than-
awesome

Here's the output from STD for comparison​:

01​:28 <[Coke]> std​: 1 ?? 1;
01​:28 <p6eval> std 625303c​: OUTPUT«===SORRY!===â�¤Found ?? but no !! at
/tmp/2ppTji_PsG line 1​:â�¤------> 1 ?? 1â��;â�¤Confused at
/tmp/2ppTji_PsG line 1​:â�¤------> 1 ?? 1â��;â�¤ expecting
prefix or
termâ�¤Parse failedâ�¤FAILED 00​:01 119mâ�¤Â»
01​:28 <[Coke]> std​: 1 ?? 2 : 3
01​:28 <p6eval> std 625303c​: OUTPUT«===SORRY!===â�¤Please use !! rather
than : at
/tmp/7j5tGYT8Bh line 1​:â�¤------> 1 ?? 2 :â�� 3â�¤Parse
failed�FAILED
00​:01 119mâ�¤Â»

57f6e33510c7 [1] pushes it a little closer to perfection, for some
reason not the whole STD code was working there. Still, messages are
much better now​:

1 ?? 1
Found ?? but no !! at line 2, near ""
1 ?? 1 : 2
Found ?? but no !! at line 1, near "​: 2\n"
1 ?? 1 :​: 2
Please use !! rather than :​: at line 1, near "​:: 2\n"

From @diakopter

On Sun Feb 20 07​:22​:56 2011, tadzik wrote​:

On Sun Jan 30 22​:29​:08 2011, coke wrote​:

On Fri Apr 02 04​:37​:41 2010, moritz wrote​:

Now says "Confused", which is much better, but still less-than-
awesome

Here's the output from STD for comparison​:

01​:28 <[Coke]> std​: 1 ?? 1;
01​:28 <p6eval> std 625303c​: OUTPUT«===SORRY!===â�¤Found ?? but no !!
at
/tmp/2ppTji_PsG line 1​:â�¤------> 1 ?? 1â��;â�¤Confused
at
/tmp/2ppTji_PsG line 1​:â�¤------> 1 ?? 1â��;â�¤
expecting
prefix or
termâ�¤Parse failedâ�¤FAILED 00​:01 119mâ�¤Â»
01​:28 <[Coke]> std​: 1 ?? 2 : 3
01​:28 <p6eval> std 625303c​: OUTPUT«===SORRY!===â�¤Please use !!
rather
than : at
/tmp/7j5tGYT8Bh line 1​:â�¤------> 1 ?? 2 :â�� 3â�¤Parse
failed�FAILED
00​:01 119mâ�¤Â»

57f6e33510c7 [1] pushes it a little closer to perfection, for some
reason not the whole STD code was working there. Still, messages are
much better now​:

1 ?? 1
Found ?? but no !! at line 2, near ""
1 ?? 1 : 2
Found ?? but no !! at line 1, near "​: 2\n"
1 ?? 1 :​: 2
Please use !! rather than :​: at line 1, near "​:: 2\n"

resolving.

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