From @masak

<jnthn> rakudo​: multi foo(​:$a!, *%_) {}; multi foo(​:$b, *%_) {}; foo(​:a, :b)
<p6eval> rakudo 0d4fe0​: OUTPUT«Ambiguous dispatch to multi 'foo'.
Ambiguous candidates had signatures​:␤​:(Any :$a, Object *%_)␤​:(Any
:$b?, Object *%_)␤in Main (/tmp/1JICUeh8sD​:2)␤»
[...]
<jnthn> So for tiebreaker
<jnthn> A the candidates are simply called in the order they were declared,
<jnthn> and the first one that successfully binds (and completes without
<jnthn> calling nextsame or nextwith) is considered the winner, and all the
<jnthn> other tied candidates are ignored.
[...]
<jnthn> If I understand S12 correctly, then by the spec the tie you
got earlier is a bug.
<jnthn> And the first candidate that appeared textually in your
program shoulda won.

From @coke

2+ years, still ambiguous​:

10​:35 < [Coke]> rakudo​: multi foo(​:$a!, *%_) {}; multi foo(​:$b, *%_) {};
  foo(​:a, :b)
10​:35 <+p6eval> rakudo 25af2d​: OUTPUT«Ambiguous dispatch to multi 'foo'.
  Ambiguous candidates had signatures​:␤​:(Any $a, Associative
  %_)␤​:(Any $b, Associative %_)␤␤ in block <anon> at
  /tmp/6V7yVjBiLw​:1␤ in <anon> at /tmp/6V7yVjBiLw​:1␤»

--
Will "Coke" Coleda

@coke - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

From @coke

On Sun Oct 16 07​:36​:18 2011, coke wrote​:

2+ years, still ambiguous​:

10​:35 < [Coke]> rakudo​: multi foo(​:$a!, *%_) {}; multi foo(​:$b, *%_) {};
foo(​:a, :b)
10​:35 <+p6eval> rakudo 25af2d​: OUTPUT«Ambiguous dispatch to multi 'foo'.
Ambiguous candidates had signatures​:␤​:(Any $a, Associative
%_)␤​:(Any $b, Associative %_)␤␤ in block <anon> at
/tmp/6V7yVjBiLw​:1␤ in <anon> at /tmp/6V7yVjBiLw​:1␤»

This is no longer ambiguous - test added in S06-multi/syntax.t, closing ticket.

--
Will "Coke" Coleda

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