Skip Menu |
Report information
Id: 130930
Status: new
Priority: 0/
Queue: perl6

Owner: Nobody
Requestors: smls75 [at] gmail.com
Cc:
AdminCc:

Severity: (no value)
Tag: (no value)
Platform: (no value)
Patch Status: (no value)
VM: (no value)



From: "Sam S." <smls75 [...] gmail.com>
Subject: [LTA] Z and X think that a Slip represents multiple arguments
To: rakudobug [...] perl.org
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 17:08:45 +0100
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 616b
say <a b> X~ (1, 2, 3); # (a1 a2 a3 b1 b2 b3) say <a b> X~ |(1, 2, 3); # (a123 b123) say <a b> X~ (1, 2, 3).Slip; # (a123 b123) Those last two seem wrong. It's as if the meta-operator thinks it got four arguments, i.e. as if it was called like: say &[X~]( <a b>, 1, 2, 3 ); # (a123 b123) I think in keeping with the single-argument rule, the X and Z meta-operators should behave as if both sides were bound to a +@ parameter, which would "disarm" the Slip and keep it from messing with the internal algorithm: sub a (+@a) { dd @a }; a |(1, 2, 3); # [1, 2, 3]


This service is sponsored and maintained by Best Practical Solutions and runs on Perl.org infrastructure.

For issues related to this RT instance (aka "perlbug"), please contact perlbug-admin at perl.org