From @masak

$ cat /tmp/test
class M {
  has M @​.ms is rw;
  method s($i=0) {
  $i ~ "[{ map { "{$_.s($i + 1)}" }, self.ms }]"
  }
}

my $m = M.new;
my $m2 = M.new;
$m2.ms = M.new;
$m.ms = M.new, $m2, M.new;
say $m.s;

$ perl6 /tmp/test
0[1[] 2[3[]] 4[]]

# expected output​:
# 0[1[] 1[2[]] 1[]]

<masak> jnthn​: did you fix my bug yet?
<jnthn> masak​: no.
<jnthn> ENEEDMORECOFFEE
<jnthn> I looked at it, and then ran to the coffee machine. :-)
<masak> lol
* moritz_ also found it a bit hard to follow :-)
<masak> I think by golfing it I actually made it harder to follow. :/
<masak> when it was about indentation, it was immediate that it was wrong.
<moritz_> or if you gave them names (<a b c d e>) and print that along
with the number
<masak> the structure looks like this​: Ma[Mb, Mc[Md], Me]
<masak> now, Mb and Me should be printed with the same indentation/number.
<jnthn> masak​: ugh
<masak> but they aren't.
<jnthn> masak​: Yes, I see the bug now.
* masak submits rakudobug
<jnthn> I agree it's wrong.

From @masak

masak (>)​:

$ cat /tmp/test
class M {
has M @​.ms is rw;
method s($i=0) {
$i ~ "[{ map { "{$_.s($i + 1)}" }, self.ms }]"
}
}

my $m = M.new;
my $m2 = M.new;
$m2.ms = M.new;
$m.ms = M.new, $m2, M.new;
say $m.s;

$ perl6 /tmp/test
0[1[] 2[3[]] 4[]]

# expected output​:
# 0[1[] 1[2[]] 1[]]

<masak> jnthn​: did you fix my bug yet?
<jnthn> masak​: no.
<jnthn> ENEEDMORECOFFEE
<jnthn> I looked at it, and then ran to the coffee machine. :-)
<masak> lol
* moritz_ also found it a bit hard to follow :-)
<masak> I think by golfing it I actually made it harder to follow. :/
<masak> when it was about indentation, it was immediate that it was wrong.
<moritz_> or if you gave them names (<a b c d e>) and print that along
with the number
<masak> the structure looks like this​: Ma[Mb, Mc[Md], Me]
<masak> now, Mb and Me should be printed with the same indentation/number.
<jnthn> masak​: ugh
<masak> but they aren't.
<jnthn> masak​: Yes, I see the bug now.
* masak submits rakudobug
<jnthn> I agree it's wrong.

<masak> rakudo​: sub f(@​a, $i=0) { $i ~ "[{map { f($_, $i + 1) }, @​a}]" }; say f([[], [[]], []])
<p6eval> rakudo 7347ec​: 0[1[] 2[3[]] 4[]]␤
* masak adds that to #​70469
<pmichaud> masak​: I suspect that's related to dispatch/binder changes, but that's just a
guess.
<masak> pmichaud​: same here.
<jnthn> Me too now I see it as a sub example.
<jnthn> masak​: Default param to blame?
<masak> jnthn​: I'll check.
<masak> rakudo​: sub f(@​a, $i) { $i ~ "[{map { f($_, $i + 1) }, @​a}]" }; say f([[], [[]], []], 0)
<p6eval> rakudo 7347ec​: 0[1[] 2[3[]] 4[]]␤
<masak> jnthn​: no.
<jnthn> masak​: Aww.
<moritz_> masak​: dammit. I was just about to put it into S06-signature/defaults.t
<jnthn> lol
<masak> :)
<pmichaud> looks to me as though a new lexpad isn't being created somehow.
<jnthn> Yeah, the problem is in there somehow.
<moritz_> masak​: and now I realize it's the wrong place, and I have no clue where to put it
<masak> moritz_​: sorry :D

From [Unknown Contact. See original ticket]

masak (>)​:

$ cat /tmp/test
class M {
has M @​.ms is rw;
method s($i=0) {
$i ~ "[{ map { "{$_.s($i + 1)}" }, self.ms }]"
}
}

my $m = M.new;
my $m2 = M.new;
$m2.ms = M.new;
$m.ms = M.new, $m2, M.new;
say $m.s;

$ perl6 /tmp/test
0[1[] 2[3[]] 4[]]

# expected output​:
# 0[1[] 1[2[]] 1[]]

<masak> jnthn​: did you fix my bug yet?
<jnthn> masak​: no.
<jnthn> ENEEDMORECOFFEE
<jnthn> I looked at it, and then ran to the coffee machine. :-)
<masak> lol
* moritz_ also found it a bit hard to follow :-)
<masak> I think by golfing it I actually made it harder to follow. :/
<masak> when it was about indentation, it was immediate that it was wrong.
<moritz_> or if you gave them names (<a b c d e>) and print that along
with the number
<masak> the structure looks like this​: Ma[Mb, Mc[Md], Me]
<masak> now, Mb and Me should be printed with the same indentation/number.
<jnthn> masak​: ugh
<masak> but they aren't.
<jnthn> masak​: Yes, I see the bug now.
* masak submits rakudobug
<jnthn> I agree it's wrong.

<masak> rakudo​: sub f(@​a, $i=0) { $i ~ "[{map { f($_, $i + 1) }, @​a}]" }; say f([[], [[]], []])
<p6eval> rakudo 7347ec​: 0[1[] 2[3[]] 4[]]␤
* masak adds that to #​70469
<pmichaud> masak​: I suspect that's related to dispatch/binder changes, but that's just a
guess.
<masak> pmichaud​: same here.
<jnthn> Me too now I see it as a sub example.
<jnthn> masak​: Default param to blame?
<masak> jnthn​: I'll check.
<masak> rakudo​: sub f(@​a, $i) { $i ~ "[{map { f($_, $i + 1) }, @​a}]" }; say f([[], [[]], []], 0)
<p6eval> rakudo 7347ec​: 0[1[] 2[3[]] 4[]]␤
<masak> jnthn​: no.
<jnthn> masak​: Aww.
<moritz_> masak​: dammit. I was just about to put it into S06-signature/defaults.t
<jnthn> lol
<masak> :)
<pmichaud> looks to me as though a new lexpad isn't being created somehow.
<jnthn> Yeah, the problem is in there somehow.
<moritz_> masak​: and now I realize it's the wrong place, and I have no clue where to put it
<masak> moritz_​: sorry :D

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

From @kyleha

This is an automatically generated mail to inform you that tests are now available in t/spec/S06-signature/positional.t

commit 81dba48cd7a6151ac6afc17948e68322aa721fbf
Author​: moritz <moritz@​c213334d-75ef-0310-aa23-eaa082d1ae64>
Date​: Sun Nov 15 17​:50​:47 2009 +0000

  [t/spec] test for RT #​70469, recursion and parameter binding
 
  git-svn-id​: http://svn.pugscode.org/pugs@&#8203;29093 c213334d-75ef-0310-aa23-eaa082d1ae64

diff --git a/t/spec/S06-signature/positional.t b/t/spec/S06-signature/positional.t
index 4cc6195..0c65e57 100644
--- a/t/spec/S06-signature/positional.t
+++ b/t/spec/S06-signature/positional.t
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 use v6;
 use Test;
-plan 5;
+plan 6;
 
 sub my_first  ($x, $,  $ ) { $x };
 sub my_second ($,  $x, $ ) { $x };
@@ -32,4 +32,14 @@ is my_third( 4, 5, 6), 6, '($, $, $x) works as a signature';
     is rt60408_if(42), (42, 42), 'use of @_[0] in an "if" block (RT 60408)';
 }
 
+#?rakudo todo 'RT 70469'
+{
+
+    sub f(@a, $i) {
+        $i ~ "[{map { f($_, $i + 1) }, @a}]"
+    };
+    is f([[], [[]], []], 0), "0[1[] 1[2[]] 1[]]",
+       'recusion and parameter binding work out fine';
+}
+
 # vim: ft=perl6

From @moritz

From t/spec/S06-signature/sub-ref.t​:

{
  my $mkinc = sub { my $x = 0; return sub { $x++ }; };

  my $inc1 = $mkinc();
  my $inc2 = $mkinc();

  is($inc1(), 0, "clousures​: inc1 == 0");
  is($inc1(), 1, "clousures​: inc1 == 1");
  is($inc2(), 0, "clousures​: inc2 == 0");
  is($inc2(), 1, "clousures​: inc2 == 1");
}

Rakudo now fails the last two tests, the old rakudo (now alpha) passed
them (and Perl 5.10 also passes them, if adapted to Perl 5 syntax).

It shares $x between both closures, although it shouldn't.

From @pmichaud

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 01​:42​:44AM -0800, Moritz Lenz wrote​:

Rakudo now fails the last two tests, the old rakudo (now alpha) passed
them (and Perl 5.10 also passes them, if adapted to Perl 5 syntax).

It shares $x between both closures, although it shouldn't.

In general Rakudo is likely to still have issues with closure cloning--
this test will help a lot to track it down.

Pm

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

From @masak

<masak> I found the disastrous bug.
<masak> it took all of yesterday evening. and half of the night.
<jnthn> How disasterous is it?
<masak> jnthn​: it's bad.
<jnthn> Damm.
<jnthn> Got a short test case?
<moritz_> do tell.
<jnthn> We've already been burnt by that.
<masak> rakudo​: my $t = 0; sub foo { my @​a; my &bar = { say +@​a };
unless $t++ { foo; push @​a, "OH HAI"; say +@​a; bar; } }; foo
<p6eval> rakudo 842d2b​: OUTPUT«1␤0␤»
<masak> alpha​: my $t = 0; sub foo { my @​a; my &bar = { say +@​a };
unless $t++ { foo; push @​a, "OH HAI"; say +@​a; bar; } }; foo
<p6eval> alpha 30e0ed​: OUTPUT«1␤1␤»
* masak submits rakudobug
<masak> I'll five you a minute or so :)
<moritz_> soo... &bar has some wrong lexical @​a?
<masak> rakudo​: my $t = 0; sub foo { my @​a; my &bar = { say @​a.WHICH
}; unless $t++ { foo; push @​a, "OH HAI"; say @​a.WHICH; bar; } }; foo
<p6eval> rakudo 842d2b​: OUTPUT«87969168␤88746296␤»
<masak> yep.
<masak> alpha​: my $t = 0; sub foo { my @​a; my &bar = { say @​a.WHICH };
unless $t++ { foo; push @​a, "OH HAI"; say @​a.WHICH; bar; } }; foo
<p6eval> alpha 30e0ed​: OUTPUT«47405094140536␤47405094140536␤»
<masak> the @​a in &bar gets bound to the @​a in the foo call called by
foo, not the foo call called by the outermost scope.
<moritz_> maybe related to RT #​73034, which also discusses variable
sharing in closures
* masak looks
<moritz_> that one is responsible for the man-or-boy test not working in master
<moritz_> Knuth++
<masak> I have no way to know whether mine is the same, so I'll go
ahead and submit it anyway.
<masak> they do look related.
<moritz_> maybe include a reference to that ticket
<masak> *nod*
<masak> until I can find a workaround, this bug blocks the conversion
of GGE to master.
<jnthn> pmichaud++ did at one point have a patch that got man or boy
passing again in master.
<moritz_> so why didn't he commit? did it break everything else?
<jnthn> Yes.
<masak> to heck with everything else!
<jnthn> rakudo​: my $t = 0; sub foo { my @​a; my &bar = pir​::clone({ say
+@​a }); unless $t++ { foo; push @​a, "OH HAI"; say +@​a; bar; } }; foo
<p6eval> rakudo 842d2b​: OUTPUT«1␤1␤»
<masak> jnthn++
<masak> there's the workaround. (eww!) :)

From @masak

<masak> pmichaud​: do you think http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=74488 is
identical to http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=73034 ?
<pmichaud> masak​: looking
<pmichaud> masak​: likely yes. The problem is that the closure isn't being cloned upon
assignment.
<masak> ah.
<masak> so I'll merge the tickets, then?
<pmichaud> wfm
* masak does it

From [Unknown Contact. See original ticket]

<masak> pmichaud​: do you think http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=74488 is
identical to http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=73034 ?
<pmichaud> masak​: looking
<pmichaud> masak​: likely yes. The problem is that the closure isn't being cloned upon
assignment.
<masak> ah.
<masak> so I'll merge the tickets, then?
<pmichaud> wfm
* masak does it

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

From @moritz

Tests now pass thanks to pmichaud's recent 'llsig' branch, closing ticket.

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