From @smls

This is how a state variable normally works​:

  ➜ for ^2 { for ^2 { say (state $a)++ } }
  0
  1
  0
  1

But when it is declared inside a {} interpolation in a string, it misbehaves​:

  ➜ for ^2 { for ^2 { say "{ (state $a)++ }" } }
  0
  1
  2
  3

It's as if the state variable attaches to the scope of the outer loop or mainline, instead of the inner loop like it should.

From @dogbert17

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 02​:56​:47 -0700, smls75@​gmail.com wrote​:

This is how a state variable normally works​:

➜ for ^2 { for ^2 { say (state $a)++ } }
0
1
0
1

But when it is declared inside a {} interpolation in a string, it
misbehaves​:

➜ for ^2 { for ^2 { say "{ (state $a)++ }" } }
0
1
2
3

It's as if the state variable attaches to the scope of the outer loop
or mainline, instead of the inner loop like it should.

Looks as if the code behaves as expected according to jnthn. See
https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6-dev/2018-02-06#i_15783359

Rejecting issue.

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

@dogbert17 - Status changed from 'open' to 'rejected'

From @AlexDaniel

Just to clarify, the last snippet now produces 0 0 0 0, which is indeed correct.

There are tests for this change in general, but possibly not for that particular case. Can we get it covered just in case?

｢testneeded｣

On 2018-02-06 05​:51​:23, jan-olof.hendig@​bredband.net wrote​:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 02​:56​:47 -0700, smls75@​gmail.com wrote​:

This is how a state variable normally works​:

➜ for ^2 { for ^2 { say (state $a)++ } }
0
1
0
1

But when it is declared inside a {} interpolation in a string, it
misbehaves​:

➜ for ^2 { for ^2 { say "{ (state $a)++ }" } }
0
1
2
3

It's as if the state variable attaches to the scope of the outer loop
or mainline, instead of the inner loop like it should.

Looks as if the code behaves as expected according to jnthn. See
https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6-dev/2018-02-06#i_15783359

Rejecting issue.

@AlexDaniel - Status changed from 'rejected' to 'open'

From @zoffixznet

Tests​: Raku/roast@0552e64c1f

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