From @masak

<masak> m​: sub &foo() {}; say "alive"
<camelia> rakudo-moar 6e182d​: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while
compiling /tmp/GE7JBiJGWP␤Missing block␤at ------> sub ⏏&foo() {}; say
"alive"␤ expecting any of​:␤ new name to be defined␤»
<masak> (a) I'm wondering if this shouldn't be allowed, and mean the
same as `sub foo`
<masak> (b) the error message is LTA, but I don't have any good ideas
for what it ought to be
<raydiak> wrt (b), maybe "invalid sub name" or "invalid character in
sub name" or along those lines? perhaps additionally a specific
mention of no leading '&' if that's the first char it saw in the name?
<raydiak> I guess it'll be the same message we see when botching the
body of an anonymous sub too, though...
* raydiak wouldn't mind allowing a leading &, either, but the message
will still be LTA in other cases
<masak> troo
* masak submits rakudobug

From @AlexDaniel

Still reproducible (2017.11, HEAD(5929887))

On 2015-02-01 11​:48​:18, masak wrote​:

<masak> m​: sub &foo() {}; say "alive"
<camelia> rakudo-moar 6e182d​: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while
compiling /tmp/GE7JBiJGWP␤Missing block␤at ------> sub ⏏&foo() {}; say
"alive"␤ expecting any of​:␤ new name to be defined␤»
<masak> (a) I'm wondering if this shouldn't be allowed, and mean the
same as `sub foo`
<masak> (b) the error message is LTA, but I don't have any good ideas
for what it ought to be
<raydiak> wrt (b), maybe "invalid sub name" or "invalid character in
sub name" or along those lines? perhaps additionally a specific
mention of no leading '&' if that's the first char it saw in the name?
<raydiak> I guess it'll be the same message we see when botching the
body of an anonymous sub too, though...
* raydiak wouldn't mind allowing a leading &, either, but the message
will still be LTA in other cases
<masak> troo
* masak submits rakudobug

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