From @lizmat

TimToady pointed out that my work on converting [] and {} accesses to sub calls, rather than method calls, had one more casualty​:

*[0]([1, 2, 3])

This is tested in t/spec/S02-types/whatever.t, line 252 and currently fudged.

The suggested change in whatever_curry did not give the right result. And now I'm in here over my head, so I'm submitting a bug report as promised.

Liz

[18​:53​:51] <TimToady> lizmat​: did you notice that the subscripting change broke *.[], *.<>, and *.{}
[18​:54​:21] <lizmat> TimToady​: no, don't think so
[18​:54​:55] <lizmat> I fudged a number of tests, but I don't recall fudging any .[] related tests
[18​:54​:56] <TimToady> nr​: my @​a = [1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7,8,9]; say @​a.map​: *.[2]
[18​:54​:59] <camelia> niecza v24-95-ga6d4c5f​: OUTPUT«3 6 9␤»
[18​:55​:00] <camelia> ..rakudo 50a57d​: OUTPUT«Index out of range. Is​: 2, should be in 0..0␤ in method <anon> at src/gen/CORE.setting​:11768␤ in any at src/gen/Metamodel.nqp​:2671␤ in any find_method_fallback at src/gen/Metamodel.nqp​:2659␤ in any find_method at src/gen/Metamodel.nqp​:946␤ in method reify…»
[19​:09​:11] <lizmat> jnthn​: I'm not sure how to fix .[] etc., any pointers ?
[19​:11​:03] <lizmat> aaahhhhh… I completely missed that TimToady meant Whatever.[]
[19​:11​:16] <lizmat> yes, that broke​: simplest case
[19​:11​:37] <lizmat> nr say *[0](1,2,3)
[19​:11​:42] <lizmat> nr​: say *[0](1,2,3)
[19​:11​:45] <camelia> niecza v24-95-ga6d4c5f​: OUTPUT«Unhandled exception​: Excess arguments to ANON, used 1 of 3 positionals␤ at /tmp/GbWfbqMj6Y line 0 (ANON @​ 1) ␤ at /tmp/GbWfbqMj6Y line 1 (mainline @​ 3) ␤ at /home/p6eval/niecza/lib/CORE.setting line 4583 (ANON @​ 3) ␤ at /home/p6eval/niecza/lib/CORE…»
[19​:11​:45] <camelia> ..rakudo 50a57d​: OUTPUT«No such method 'postcircumfix​:<( )>' for invocant of type 'Whatever'␤ in block at /tmp/IcpYdTyvhm​:1␤␤»
[19​:12​:04] <jnthn> lizmat​: yeah
[19​:12​:10] <jnthn> lizmat​: See Actions.pm, whatever_curry
[19​:12​:16] lizmat checks
[19​:12​:31] <jnthn> lizmat​: Near the top it OKs infix, prefix and postfix. Try adding postcircumfix to that list.
[19​:13​:36] <lizmat> I guess I should follow the callmethod value, right?
[19​:14​:13] <jnthn> ?
[19​:14​:25] <jnthn> no, inside whatever_curry
[19​:14​:38] <jnthn> (nqp​::index($past.name, '&infix​:') == 0 ||
[19​:14​:38] <jnthn> nqp​::index($past.name, '&prefix​:') == 0 ||
[19​:14​:38] <jnthn> nqp​::index($past.name, '&postfix​:') == 0 ||
[19​:14​:42] <lizmat> ahhhh ok
[19​:14​:42] <jnthn> After that
[19​:16​:21] <lizmat> compiling and testing
[19​:19​:26] <TimToady> using index to test for prefix bothers me, since it'll scan uselessly whenever it doesn't match
[19​:20​:49] moritz waits for masak++ to construct a bug report that involves a variable named 'something&infix​:bla' which shouldn't be treated as an infix, but is
[19​:21​:11] <masak> :P
[19​:21​:21] <TimToady> well, the == 0 prevents that, but it's just the waste that bothers me
[19​:24​:07] <TimToady> it's like using a pile-driver to squash a bug, and after doing it 50 times, then checking to see if you were successful the first time
[19​:25​:33] <moritz> might still be faster than nqp​::eq(nqp​::substr($past.name, 0, nqp​::chars('&infix​:')), '&infix​:')
[19​:25​:38] <TimToady> and a smart index might even have set up Boyer-Moore tables on the assumption it was going to scan
[19​:26​:18] <TimToady> sure would be nice if we could write Perl 6 in Perl 6 :)
[19​:27​:11] <TimToady> then it's just /^ '&' [ in | pre | post 'circum'? ] fix '​:' / :)
[19​:27​:58] <lizmat> $ perl6 --ll-exception -e 'say *[0](1,2,3)'
[19​:27​:58] <lizmat> Too many positional parameters passed; got 3 but expected 1
[19​:28​:30] <lizmat> full stack trace​: https://gist.github.com/lizmat/6717575
[19​:28​:35] <lizmat> the error changed
[19​:28​:54] <lizmat> but I have no idea where that code lives
[19​:29​:40] <FROGGS> lizmat​: maybe look at the ast
[19​:30​:38] <TimToady> lizmat​: src/Perl6/Actions.nqp sez a recursive grep
[19​:33​:00] <lizmat> sanity check​: *[0](1,2,3,4,5) should return the first element of the (1,2,3,4,5) parcel, right ?
[19​:35​:02] <TimToady> nr​: say (1,2,3,4,5)[0]
[19​:35​:05] <camelia> rakudo 50a57d, niecza v24-95-ga6d4c5f​: OUTPUT«1␤»
[19​:35​:08] <TimToady> so it would seem
[19​:35​:23] <lizmat> right *phew*
[19​:35​:35] <TimToady> so *() has to be exempted from the postcirumfixes for *
[19​:36​:05] <TimToady> unless we force people to say (*[0])(1,2,3,45)
[19​:36​:16] <lizmat> trying that
[19​:36​:18] <TimToady> if we decide there's a use case for *.()
[19​:36​:32] <TimToady> which arguably there probably is
[19​:36​:55] <TimToady> map​: *.() should invoke each of a list of invokables
[19​:37​:23] <TimToady> so I'm inclined to not make *() an exception, and force people to say (*[0])(1,2,3,4,5) if that's what they mean
[19​:38​:06] <TimToady> in that case, *[0](1,2,3,4,5) means { $_.[0].(1,2,3,4,5) } (as a WhateverCode)
[19​:38​:17] <TimToady> that feels cleaner to me
[19​:38​:43] <TimToady> the use case for callinging a WhateverCode directly is minimal
[19​:38​:50] <TimToady> *inginging
[19​:39​:14] lizmat feels she no longer has to duck
[19​:39​:36] <TimToady> nr​: say *[0](1,2,3,4,5).WHAT
[19​:39​:36] <lizmat> as in​: this is way over my head
[19​:39​:38] <camelia> niecza v24-95-ga6d4c5f​: OUTPUT«Unhandled exception​: Excess arguments to ANON, used 1 of 5 positionals␤ at /tmp/vU2WHEK3m3 line 0 (ANON @​ 1) ␤ at /tmp/vU2WHEK3m3 line 1 (mainline @​ 3) ␤ at /home/p6eval/niecza/lib/CORE.setting line 4583 (ANON @​ 3) ␤ at /home/p6eval/niecza/lib/CORE…»
[19​:39​:39] <camelia> ..rakudo 50a57d​: OUTPUT«No such method 'postcircumfix​:<( )>' for invocant of type 'Whatever'␤ in block at /tmp/uP5CQeMuln​:1␤␤»
[19​:40​:06] <TimToady> n​: say (*[0](1,2,3,4,5)).WHAT
[19​:40​:08] <camelia> niecza v24-95-ga6d4c5f​: OUTPUT«Unhandled exception​: Excess arguments to ANON, used 1 of 5 positionals␤ at /tmp/zSzO4DEzSC line 0 (ANON @​ 1) ␤ at /tmp/zSzO4DEzSC line 1 (mainline @​ 3) ␤ at /home/p6eval/niecza/lib/CORE.setting line 4583 (ANON @​ 3) ␤ at /home/p6eval/niecza/lib/CORE…»
[19​:40​:28] <TimToady> I guess niecza exempts .() though
[19​:41​:07] <TimToady> n​: say (*(1,2,3,4,5)).WHAT
[19​:41​:09] <camelia> niecza v24-95-ga6d4c5f​: OUTPUT«Unhandled exception​: Unable to resolve method postcircumfix​:<( )> in type Whatever␤ at /tmp/JqJTGWQeaz line 1 (mainline @​ 3) ␤ at /home/p6eval/niecza/lib/CORE.setting line 4583 (ANON @​ 3) ␤ at /home/p6eval/niecza/lib/CORE.setting line 4584 (module-C…»
[19​:49​:02] <TimToady> n​: say ({.(1,2,3,4,5)}).WHAT
[19​:49​:04] <camelia> niecza v24-95-ga6d4c5f​: OUTPUT«(Block)␤»
[19​:49​:23] TimToady thinks *(1,2,3,4,5) should mean that
[19​:49​:39] <TimToady> well, except it's a WhateverCode
[19​:51​:15] <masak> TimToady​: *(1,2,3,4,5) looks like -> &f { &f(1,2,3,4,5) } to me.
[19​:51​:40] <masak> oh wait, we're saying the same thing, aren't we?
[19​:51​:47] <TimToady> yes, though I just wrote it {.()}
[19​:52​:36] <TimToady> so I flipflopped on my answer to lizmat++ and don't think .() should be an exception under Whatever
[19​:53​:06] <lizmat> .oO( lalaalalalala I'm not listening ) :-)
[19​:53​:49] <TimToady> but you BROKE it! WAAAH! :P
[19​:54​:07] <lizmat> may I plead insanity ?
[19​:54​:54] <TimToady> as long as you don't plead ultro-low-frequency EM
[19​:55​:03] <TimToady> *ultra
[19​:55​:17] <lizmat> My Hero!
[19​:55​:55] <TimToady> but in that case someone needs to file a bug
[19​:56​:16] <lizmat> .oO( I was suddenly reminded of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Hero_(UK_TV_series) )
[19​:57​:08] TimToady looks around for an anti-hero to file the bug report for all the wrong reasons...
[20​:00​:59] <lizmat> I will file one if I can't get it fixed

From @Mouq

On Thu Sep 26 11​:17​:22 2013, elizabeth wrote​:

TimToady pointed out that my work on converting [] and {} accesses to
sub calls, rather than method calls, had one more casualty​:

*[0]([1, 2, 3])

This is tested in t/spec/S02-types/whatever.t, line 252 and currently
fudged.

Works now​:

$ perl6 -e'say *[0]([1, 2, 3])'
1

The suggested change in whatever_curry did not give the right result.
And now I'm in here over my head, so I'm submitting a bug report as
promised.

Liz

[18​:53​:51] <TimToady> lizmat​: did you notice that the subscripting
change broke *.[], *.<>, and *.{}
[18​:54​:21] <lizmat> TimToady​: no, don't think so
[18​:54​:55] <lizmat> I fudged a number of tests, but I don't
recall fudging any .[] related tests
[18​:54​:56] <TimToady> nr​: my @​a = [1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7,8,9]; say
@​a.map​: *.[2]
[18​:54​:59] <camelia> niecza v24-95-ga6d4c5f​: OUTPUT«3 6 9␤»
[18​:55​:00] <camelia> ..rakudo 50a57d​: OUTPUT«Index out of range.
Is​: 2, should be in 0..0␤ in method <anon> at
src/gen/CORE.setting​:11768␤ in any at src/gen/Metamodel.nqp​:2671␤
in any find_method_fallback at src/gen/Metamodel.nqp​:2659␤ in any
find_method at src/gen/Metamodel.nqp​:946␤ in method reify…»
[19​:09​:11] <lizmat> jnthn​: I'm not sure how to fix .[] etc., any
pointers ?
[19​:11​:03] <lizmat> aaahhhhh… I completely missed that TimToady
meant Whatever.[]
[19​:11​:16] <lizmat> yes, that broke​: simplest case
[19​:11​:37] <lizmat> nr say *[0](1,2,3)
[19​:11​:42] <lizmat> nr​: say *[0](1,2,3)
[19​:11​:45] <camelia> niecza v24-95-ga6d4c5f​: OUTPUT«Unhandled
exception​: Excess arguments to ANON, used 1 of 3 positionals␤ at
/tmp/GbWfbqMj6Y line 0 (ANON @​ 1) ␤ at /tmp/GbWfbqMj6Y line 1
(mainline @​ 3) ␤ at /home/p6eval/niecza/lib/CORE.setting line 4583
(ANON @​ 3) ␤ at /home/p6eval/niecza/lib/CORE…»
[19​:11​:45] <camelia> ..rakudo 50a57d​: OUTPUT«No such method
'postcircumfix​:<( )>' for invocant of type 'Whatever'␤ in block at
/tmp/IcpYdTyvhm​:1␤␤»
[19​:12​:04] <jnthn> lizmat​: yeah
[19​:12​:10] <jnthn> lizmat​: See Actions.pm, whatever_curry
[19​:12​:16] lizmat checks
[19​:12​:31] <jnthn> lizmat​: Near the top it OKs infix, prefix and
postfix. Try adding postcircumfix to that list.
[19​:13​:36] <lizmat> I guess I should follow the callmethod value,
right?
[19​:14​:13] <jnthn> ?
[19​:14​:25] <jnthn> no, inside whatever_curry
[19​:14​:38] <jnthn> (nqp​::index($past.name,
'&infix​:') == 0 ||
[19​:14​:38] <jnthn> nqp​::index($past.name,
'&prefix​:') == 0 ||
[19​:14​:38] <jnthn> nqp​::index($past.name,
'&postfix​:') == 0 ||
[19​:14​:42] <lizmat> ahhhh ok
[19​:14​:42] <jnthn> After that
[19​:16​:21] <lizmat> compiling and testing
[19​:19​:26] <TimToady> using index to test for prefix bothers me,
since it'll scan uselessly whenever it doesn't match
[19​:20​:49] moritz waits for masak++ to construct a bug report
that involves a variable named 'something&infix​:bla' which shouldn't
be treated as an infix, but is
[19​:21​:11] <masak> :P
[19​:21​:21] <TimToady> well, the == 0 prevents that, but it's just
the waste that bothers me
[19​:24​:07] <TimToady> it's like using a pile-driver to squash a
bug, and after doing it 50 times, then checking to see if you were
successful the first time
[19​:25​:33] <moritz> might still be faster than
nqp​::eq(nqp​::substr($past.name, 0, nqp​::chars('&infix​:')), '&infix​:')
[19​:25​:38] <TimToady> and a smart index might even have set up
Boyer-Moore tables on the assumption it was going to scan
[19​:26​:18] <TimToady> sure would be nice if we could write Perl 6
in Perl 6 :)
[19​:27​:11] <TimToady> then it's just /^ '&' [ in | pre | post
'circum'? ] fix '​:' / :)
[19​:27​:58] <lizmat> $ perl6 --ll-exception -e 'say *[0](1,2,3)'
[19​:27​:58] <lizmat> Too many positional parameters passed; got 3
but expected 1
[19​:28​:30] <lizmat> full stack trace​:
https://gist.github.com/lizmat/6717575
[19​:28​:35] <lizmat> the error changed
[19​:28​:54] <lizmat> but I have no idea where that code lives
[19​:29​:40] <FROGGS> lizmat​: maybe look at the ast
[19​:30​:38] <TimToady> lizmat​: src/Perl6/Actions.nqp sez a recursive
grep
[19​:33​:00] <lizmat> sanity check​: *[0](1,2,3,4,5) should return
the first element of the (1,2,3,4,5) parcel, right ?
[19​:35​:02] <TimToady> nr​: say (1,2,3,4,5)[0]
[19​:35​:05] <camelia> rakudo 50a57d, niecza v24-95-ga6d4c5f​:
OUTPUT«1␤»
[19​:35​:08] <TimToady> so it would seem
[19​:35​:23] <lizmat> right *phew*
[19​:35​:35] <TimToady> so *() has to be exempted from the
postcirumfixes for *
[19​:36​:05] <TimToady> unless we force people to say
(*[0])(1,2,3,45)
[19​:36​:16] <lizmat> trying that
[19​:36​:18] <TimToady> if we decide there's a use case for *.()
[19​:36​:32] <TimToady> which arguably there probably is
[19​:36​:55] <TimToady> map​: *.() should invoke each of a list of
invokables
[19​:37​:23] <TimToady> so I'm inclined to not make *() an exception,
and force people to say (*[0])(1,2,3,4,5) if that's what they mean
[19​:38​:06] <TimToady> in that case, *[0](1,2,3,4,5) means {
$_.[0].(1,2,3,4,5) } (as a WhateverCode)
[19​:38​:17] <TimToady> that feels cleaner to me
[19​:38​:43] <TimToady> the use case for callinging a WhateverCode
directly is minimal
[19​:38​:50] <TimToady> *inginging
[19​:39​:14] lizmat feels she no longer has to duck
[19​:39​:36] <TimToady> nr​: say *[0](1,2,3,4,5).WHAT
[19​:39​:36] <lizmat> as in​: this is way over my head
[19​:39​:38] <camelia> niecza v24-95-ga6d4c5f​: OUTPUT«Unhandled
exception​: Excess arguments to ANON, used 1 of 5 positionals␤ at
/tmp/vU2WHEK3m3 line 0 (ANON @​ 1) ␤ at /tmp/vU2WHEK3m3 line 1
(mainline @​ 3) ␤ at /home/p6eval/niecza/lib/CORE.setting line 4583
(ANON @​ 3) ␤ at /home/p6eval/niecza/lib/CORE…»
[19​:39​:39] <camelia> ..rakudo 50a57d​: OUTPUT«No such method
'postcircumfix​:<( )>' for invocant of type 'Whatever'␤ in block at
/tmp/uP5CQeMuln​:1␤␤»
[19​:40​:06] <TimToady> n​: say (*[0](1,2,3,4,5)).WHAT
[19​:40​:08] <camelia> niecza v24-95-ga6d4c5f​: OUTPUT«Unhandled
exception​: Excess arguments to ANON, used 1 of 5 positionals␤ at
/tmp/zSzO4DEzSC line 0 (ANON @​ 1) ␤ at /tmp/zSzO4DEzSC line 1
(mainline @​ 3) ␤ at /home/p6eval/niecza/lib/CORE.setting line 4583
(ANON @​ 3) ␤ at /home/p6eval/niecza/lib/CORE…»
[19​:40​:28] <TimToady> I guess niecza exempts .() though
[19​:41​:07] <TimToady> n​: say (*(1,2,3,4,5)).WHAT
[19​:41​:09] <camelia> niecza v24-95-ga6d4c5f​: OUTPUT«Unhandled
exception​: Unable to resolve method postcircumfix​:<( )> in type
Whatever␤ at /tmp/JqJTGWQeaz line 1 (mainline @​ 3) ␤ at
/home/p6eval/niecza/lib/CORE.setting line 4583 (ANON @​ 3) ␤ at
/home/p6eval/niecza/lib/CORE.setting line 4584 (module-C…»
[19​:49​:02] <TimToady> n​: say ({.(1,2,3,4,5)}).WHAT
[19​:49​:04] <camelia> niecza v24-95-ga6d4c5f​: OUTPUT«(Block)␤»
[19​:49​:23] TimToady thinks *(1,2,3,4,5) should mean that
[19​:49​:39] <TimToady> well, except it's a WhateverCode
[19​:51​:15] <masak> TimToady​: *(1,2,3,4,5) looks like -> &f {
&f(1,2,3,4,5) } to me.
[19​:51​:40] <masak> oh wait, we're saying the same thing, aren't
we?
[19​:51​:47] <TimToady> yes, though I just wrote it {.()}
[19​:52​:36] <TimToady> so I flipflopped on my answer to lizmat++ and
don't think .() should be an exception under Whatever
[19​:53​:06] <lizmat> .oO( lalaalalalala I'm not listening ) :-)
[19​:53​:49] <TimToady> but you BROKE it! WAAAH! :P
[19​:54​:07] <lizmat> may I plead insanity ?
[19​:54​:54] <TimToady> as long as you don't plead ultro-low-
frequency EM
[19​:55​:03] <TimToady> *ultra
[19​:55​:17] <lizmat> My Hero!
[19​:55​:55] <TimToady> but in that case someone needs to file a bug
[19​:56​:16] <lizmat> .oO( I was suddenly reminded of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Hero_(UK_TV_series) )
[19​:57​:08] TimToady looks around for an anti-hero to file the bug
report for all the wrong reasons...
[20​:00​:59] <lizmat> I will file one if I can't get it fixed

It seems most of this conversation is about the behaviour of *(). I think a different report should be filed for *.() or the title of this report be changed. As an aside, what curries into a WhateverCode should probably be written in the spec somewhere…

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

From @usev6

On Sat Apr 12 19​:55​:27 2014, Mouq wrote​:

On Thu Sep 26 11​:17​:22 2013, elizabeth wrote​:

TimToady pointed out that my work on converting [] and {} accesses to
sub calls, rather than method calls, had one more casualty​:

*[0]([1, 2, 3])

This is tested in t/spec/S02-types/whatever.t, line 252 and currently
fudged.

Works now​:

$ perl6 -e'say *[0]([1, 2, 3])'
1

[...]
It seems most of this conversation is about the behaviour of *(). I
think a different report should be filed for *.() or the title of this
report be changed. As an aside, what curries into a WhateverCode
should probably be written in the spec somewhere…

Since said test runs fine and is no longer fudged, I'm closing this ticket.

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