Navigation Menu

Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Preincrement prefix:<++> and postincrement postfix:<++> should be non-associative in Rakudo #4250

Closed
p6rt opened this issue May 17, 2015 · 4 comments
Labels

Comments

@p6rt
Copy link

p6rt commented May 17, 2015

Migrated from rt.perl.org#125210 (status was 'resolved')

Searchable as RT125210$

@p6rt
Copy link
Author

p6rt commented May 17, 2015

From @masak

<FROGGS> lizmat++
<masak> lizmat++
<cognominal> ++lizmat++
<masak> m​: my $lizmat = 42; ++$lizmat++
<camelia> rakudo-moar 550b8c​: OUTPUT«Cannot assign to an immutable value [...]
<masak> I *think* that should actually be a parse error.
<masak> std​: my $lizmat = 42; ++$lizmat++
19​:08 <+camelia> std 28329a7​: OUTPUT«===SORRY!===␤"++" and "++" are
not associative [...] FAILED 0…»
<masak> yeah. like that.
* masak submits rakudobug
<masak> pro tip​: you can make rakudobugs out of *anything*! :P
* lizmat feels honoured :-)

@p6rt
Copy link
Author

p6rt commented Oct 27, 2015

From @jnthn

On Sun May 17 12​:11​:16 2015, masak wrote​:

<FROGGS> lizmat++
<masak> lizmat++
<cognominal> ++lizmat++
<masak> m​: my $lizmat = 42; ++$lizmat++
<camelia> rakudo-moar 550b8c​: OUTPUT«Cannot assign to an immutable
value [...]
<masak> I *think* that should actually be a parse error.
<masak> std​: my $lizmat = 42; ++$lizmat++
19​:08 <+camelia> std 28329a7​: OUTPUT«===SORRY!===␤"++" and "++" are
not associative [...] FAILED 0…»
<masak> yeah. like that.
* masak submits rakudobug
<masak> pro tip​: you can make rakudobugs out of *anything*! :P
* lizmat feels honoured :-)

Fixed, and test added to S03-operators/precedence.t.

@p6rt
Copy link
Author

p6rt commented Oct 27, 2015

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

@p6rt
Copy link
Author

p6rt commented Oct 27, 2015

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

@p6rt p6rt closed this as completed Oct 27, 2015
@p6rt p6rt added the Bug label Jan 5, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant