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
Set.new confused by Nil #6143
Comments
From zefram@fysh.org
Attempting to put Nil into a Set instead puts Any into one. Happens with -zefram |
From @geekosaurErm. Isn't Nil a silent Failure? Insisting that it be propagated and (At present my understanding is that it is a silent Failure and most if not On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Zefram <perl6-bugs-followup@perl.org> wrote:
-- |
The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open' |
From zefram@fysh.orgBrandon Allbery via RT wrote:
It may well represent such a thing, but it is also a reified object. If you want to impose a restriction that failure objects can't go into -zefram |
From @skidsOn Thu, 09 Mar 2017 12:55:58 -0800, zefram@fysh.org wrote:
The reason this is happening is not that Nil is a pseudo-Failure. $ perl6 -e 'my @a; @a = Nil,Nil; @a.perl.say' This is mentioned in S02. Set, as of right now, cannot be parameterized so you only get to see Nil is not supposed to be used as a generic kickaround Mu Or philosphically, Per S02, Nil 'means "there is no value here"', We only let it out into Lists/Seqs because it would be impossible If there is a compelling use-case for allowing Nil in a Set, it should |
From zefram@fysh.orgBrian S. Julin via RT wrote:
Some of the specialness mentioned in S02 doesn't happen, such as .ACCEPTS
False analogy. The intentional behaviour of the Array is that (by
And yet Nil is a reified object, and so very much *is* a value that
Again, that may be so in some higher-level situation in which Nil is not
I find the intrinsic concept of the set to be pretty compelling.
I don't follow this argument. There doesn't seem to be any rule against
Trying things out now, I see that the behaviour of the test cases with
That's pretty weird. The subject line of this ticket still seems
That looks like a separate bug. -zefram |
From @skidsOn Tue, 05 Sep 2017 03:21:07 -0700, zefram@fysh.org wrote:
OK, I can see your argument for the difference between Set and Array here. Also, having now had a look at the current implementation I cannot argue with Syntactically it may not be possible to get some reified objects into I'd just offer that some reified objects in Perl6 come with attached syntax-like But for things like Empty, we'd need some special constructor, and depending As to the set-theory argument, I don't get the feeling Perl6 is aiming for a |
Migrated from rt.perl.org#130970 (status was 'open')
Searchable as RT130970$
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: