From @masak

<masak> the question has to do with the TODO comment; why couldn't you
just use 'say' rather than 'print ... "\n"'?
<snarkyboojum> masak​: didn't know how to ;) it thinks I'm referring to
the current say sub if I do that I think (expected 2 args, got 1 type
error message)
<masak> sounds like a bug.
<snarkyboojum> ah
<snarkyboojum> well how would it work out which say I want to use?
<masak> snarkyboojum​: subs are orthogonal to methods.
<masak> rakudo​: class A { method say($x) { say $x } }; A.new.say("OH HAI")
<p6eval> rakudo 50fa7b​: OUTPUT«Not enough positional parameters
passed; got 1 but expected 2 [...]
<snarkyboojum> yeah that sort of thing :)
<jnthn> That's...wrong. :|
<jnthn> wtf.
* masak submits a rakudobug
<masak> :)

From @jnthn

On Fri Apr 02 15​:46​:29 2010, masak wrote​:

<masak> the question has to do with the TODO comment; why couldn't you
just use 'say' rather than 'print ... "\n"'?
<snarkyboojum> masak​: didn't know how to ;) it thinks I'm referring to
the current say sub if I do that I think (expected 2 args, got 1 type
error message)
<masak> sounds like a bug.
<snarkyboojum> ah
<snarkyboojum> well how would it work out which say I want to use?
<masak> snarkyboojum​: subs are orthogonal to methods.
<masak> rakudo​: class A { method say($x) { say $x } }; A.new.say("OH HAI")
<p6eval> rakudo 50fa7b​: OUTPUT«Not enough positional parameters
passed; got 1 but expected 2 [...]
<snarkyboojum> yeah that sort of thing :)
<jnthn> That's...wrong. :|
<jnthn> wtf.

Turns out $*SCOPE was leaking into places it shouldn't be. Fixed now...

class A { method say($x) { say $x } }; A.new.say("OH HAI")
OH HAI

Given to moritz++ for spectests.

Jonathan

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

From @moritz

Tested in t/spec/S12-methods/instance.t.

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