From @masak

<masak> m​: my $promise = Promise.new; say $promise.status;
Promise​::Vow.new(​:$promise).keep(42); say $promise.status
<camelia> rakudo-moar fafc5b​: OUTPUT«Planned␤Kept␤»
* masak submits rakudobug
<masak> I should read source more often :>
<masak> seems you can create a new Promise​::Vow just by referring to
it, because it's an `our` class.
<jnthn> umm...wtf
<jnthn> I thought that was a lexical class
<masak> all accesses *should* go through the .vow method in Promise,
but they don't have to
<jnthn> masak​: Please try making it a lexical class and seeing if that
helps things.
<masak> will do, just let me finish submitting the rakudobug first.
<masak> jnthn​: I dug down in git blame. you created it (as "Keeper")
in 0358bae2394e14c7b4f42cd4e7f069a19c1bf060 -- it was 'our'-scoped
already then.
<jnthn> masak​: OK...I suspect it's an oversight. I can't think of any
reason I'd have wanted it to be non-lexical...
<masak> me either.
<masak> it feels like the pattern completes perfectly if it is a lexical.
<jnthn> Right.
<jnthn> (previous jnthn)-- # not thinking about scope

From @masak

Fixed in fb991b and spectested in 4f7877.

Resolving ticket.

@masak - Status changed from 'new' to 'resolved'