From @masak

<masak> r​: .say for (1, 2, 3) <<>> "!"; .say for (1, 2, 3) «» "!";
.say for (1, 2, 3)«»"!"
<p6eval> rakudo 87ad7c​: OUTPUT«1!␤2!␤3!␤1!␤2!␤3!␤1!␤2!␤3!␤»
<masak> r​: .say for (1, 2, 3)<<>>"!"
<p6eval> rakudo 87ad7c​: OUTPUT«===SORRY!===␤Two terms in a row␤at
/tmp/Kg__QjZ4yV​:1␤------> .say for (1, 2, 3)<<>>⏏"!"␤ [...]
* masak submits rakudobug
<jnthn> masak​: It parsed as a subscript
<masak> jnthn​: I know.
<jnthn> masak​: Yes, and STD does it too.
<jnthn> masak​: It's not a bug.
<masak> jnthn​: responding to Ovid's p6u email from a week ago.
<masak> jnthn​: the fact that it parses as a subscript isn't the bug.
<masak> jnthn​: look at the evaluation before.
<masak> it parses as a subscript when it's <<>>, but not when it's «~»
<jnthn> oh...
<jnthn> Yeah, that's 'cus we're missing those quotes in the grammar somehow
<masak> that's the bug.
<jnthn> masak​: OK, fair enough.

From @jnthn

On Mon Mar 04 11​:57​:36 2013, masak wrote​:

<masak> r​: .say for (1, 2, 3) <<>> "!"; .say for (1, 2, 3) «» "!";
.say for (1, 2, 3)«»"!"
<p6eval> rakudo 87ad7c​: OUTPUT«1!␤2!␤3!␤1!␤2!␤3!␤1!␤2!␤3!␤»
<masak> r​: .say for (1, 2, 3)<<>>"!"
<p6eval> rakudo 87ad7c​: OUTPUT«===SORRY!===␤Two terms in a row␤at
/tmp/Kg__QjZ4yV​:1␤------> .say for (1, 2, 3)<<>>⏏"!"␤ [...]
* masak submits rakudobug
<jnthn> masak​: It parsed as a subscript
<masak> jnthn​: I know.
<jnthn> masak​: Yes, and STD does it too.
<jnthn> masak​: It's not a bug.
<masak> jnthn​: responding to Ovid's p6u email from a week ago.
<masak> jnthn​: the fact that it parses as a subscript isn't the bug.
<masak> jnthn​: look at the evaluation before.
<masak> it parses as a subscript when it's <<>>, but not when it's
«~»
<jnthn> oh...
<jnthn> Yeah, that's 'cus we're missing those quotes in the grammar
somehow
<masak> that's the bug.
<jnthn> masak​: OK, fair enough.

Added the missing postcircumfixes now, so the bug is resolved.

Tagging test needed.

Thanks,

/jnthn

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

From @coke

On Fri Mar 08 06​:06​:54 2013, jnthn@​jnthn.net wrote​:

On Mon Mar 04 11​:57​:36 2013, masak wrote​:

<masak> r​: .say for (1, 2, 3) <<>> "!"; .say for (1, 2, 3) «» "!";
.say for (1, 2, 3)«»"!"
<p6eval> rakudo 87ad7c​: OUTPUT«1!␤2!␤3!␤1!␤2!␤3!␤1!␤2!␤3!␤»
<masak> r​: .say for (1, 2, 3)<<>>"!"
<p6eval> rakudo 87ad7c​: OUTPUT«===SORRY!===␤Two terms in a row␤at
/tmp/Kg__QjZ4yV​:1␤------> .say for (1, 2, 3)<<>>⏏"!"␤ [...]
* masak submits rakudobug
<jnthn> masak​: It parsed as a subscript
<masak> jnthn​: I know.
<jnthn> masak​: Yes, and STD does it too.
<jnthn> masak​: It's not a bug.
<masak> jnthn​: responding to Ovid's p6u email from a week ago.
<masak> jnthn​: the fact that it parses as a subscript isn't the bug.
<masak> jnthn​: look at the evaluation before.
<masak> it parses as a subscript when it's <<>>, but not when it's
«~»
<jnthn> oh...
<jnthn> Yeah, that's 'cus we're missing those quotes in the grammar
somehow
<masak> that's the bug.
<jnthn> masak​: OK, fair enough.

Added the missing postcircumfixes now, so the bug is resolved.

Tagging test needed.

Thanks,

/jnthn

:(

Broken again​:

20​:57 < [Coke]> r​: .say for (1, 2, 3)<<>>"!" # RT # 117045
20​:57 <+camelia> rakudo-parrot 4f66ce​: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while
  compiling /tmp/4yeHzovIpJ␤Two terms in a row␤at
  /tmp/4yeHzovIpJ​:1␤------> .say for (1, 2, 3)<<>>⏏"!" # RT #
  117045␤ expecting any of​:␤ postfix␤
  shell-quote word…»

--
Will "Coke" Coleda

From @Mouq

On Tue Jan 14 17​:58​:47 2014, coke wrote​:

:(

Broken again​:

20​:57 < [Coke]> r​: .say for (1, 2, 3)<<>>"!" # RT # 117045
20​:57 <+camelia> rakudo-parrot 4f66ce​: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while
compiling /tmp/4yeHzovIpJ␤Two terms in a row␤at
/tmp/4yeHzovIpJ​:1␤------> .say for (1, 2, 3)<<>>⏏"!"
# RT #
117045␤ expecting any of​:␤ postfix␤
shell-quote word…»

AFAICT, and as the irc log states, though entirely clearly, this is actually the correct behavior. The “<<>>” is parsed a subscript to “(1, 2, 3)”. The issue was that “(1, 2, 3)«»"!"” should have failed in the same way. The current behavior seems correct to me​:

01​:23 <Mouq> r​: .say for (1, 2, 3)«»"!"
01​:23 <camelia> rakudo-jvm 4f66ce​: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while compiling
  /tmp/Hk1vHd3zgB␤Two terms in a row␤at /tmp/Hk1vHd3zgB​:1␤------>
  .say for (1, 2, 3)«»⏏"!"␤ expecting any of​:␤
  postfix␤ shell-quote words␤ infix…»

From @Mouq

On Tue Jan 14 22​:25​:10 2014, Mouq wrote​:

On Tue Jan 14 17​:58​:47 2014, coke wrote​:

:(

Broken again​:

20​:57 < [Coke]> r​: .say for (1, 2, 3)<<>>"!" # RT # 117045
20​:57 <+camelia> rakudo-parrot 4f66ce​: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error
while
compiling /tmp/4yeHzovIpJ␤Two terms in a row␤at
/tmp/4yeHzovIpJ​:1␤------> .say for (1, 2,
3)<<>>⏏"!"
# RT #
117045␤ expecting any of​:␤ postfix␤
shell-quote word…»

AFAICT, and as the irc log states, though entirely clearly, this is
actually the correct behavior. The “<<>>” is parsed a subscript to
“(1, 2, 3)”. The issue was that “(1, 2, 3)«»"!"” should have failed
in the same way. The current behavior seems correct to me​:

01​:23 <Mouq> r​: .say for (1, 2, 3)«»"!"
01​:23 <camelia> rakudo-jvm 4f66ce​: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while
compiling
/tmp/Hk1vHd3zgB␤Two terms in a row␤at
/tmp/Hk1vHd3zgB​:1␤------>
.say for (1, 2, 3)«»⏏"!"␤ expecting any of​:␤
postfix␤ shell-quote words␤ infix…»

Sorry, *not entirely clearly, I meant :P

From @usev6

I agree with Mouq and after adding a test to S03-operators/misc.t with commit Raku/roast@1e08ea21cc I'm now closing the ticket.

@usev6 - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved'