From @AlexDaniel

Code​:
say [*] set(1,2,3), set(4,5,6)

Result​:
9

OK, that ↑ makes sense.

Code​:
say [*] set(1,2,3)

Result​:
set(3, 1, 2)

Huh? I expected 3.

Related​: https://rt-archive.perl.org/perl6/Ticket/Display.html?id=128757 (single arg thing does not really work with +)
IRC discussion​: http://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2016-07-27#i_12921657

From @lizmat

Hmmm…. in RT #​128757 you expect a single value to return identity, and here you expect it not to return it? By the same reasoning that [/] “hello” returns “hello”, I think [*] set(1,2,3) should return set(1,2,3).

Or am I missing something?

On 27 Jul 2016, at 23​:29, Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev (via RT) <perl6-bugs-followup@​perl.org> wrote​:

# New Ticket Created by Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev
# Please include the string​: [perl #​128758]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# <URL​: https://rt-archive.perl.org/perl6/Ticket/Display.html?id=128758 >

Code​:
say [*] set(1,2,3), set(4,5,6)

Result​:
9

OK, that ↑ makes sense.

Code​:
say [*] set(1,2,3)

Result​:
set(3, 1, 2)

Huh? I expected 3.

Related​: https://rt-archive.perl.org/perl6/Ticket/Display.html?id=128757 (single arg thing
does not really work with +)
IRC discussion​: http://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2016-07-27#i_12921657

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

From @pmichaud

On Wed Jul 27 14​:38​:42 2016, elizabeth wrote​:

Hmmm…. in RT #​128757 you expect a single value to return identity, and
here you expect it not to return it? By the same reasoning that [/]
“hello” returns “hello”, I think [*] set(1,2,3) should return
set(1,2,3).

Or am I missing something?

I don't think you're missing anything; but I do think there's a really strong case that [*] should numify its arguments, even if there's only one.

In #​128757 my impression of the OP's ticket was that a pattern was established by [*], [/], and [-] that [+] didn't follow that pattern (it was inconsistent)... not that the "return identity" behavior was the correct/desired one.

Pm

From @AlexDaniel

On 2016-07-27 14​:38​:42, elizabeth wrote​:

Hmmm…. in RT #​128757 you expect a single value to return identity, and
here you expect it not to return it? By the same reasoning that [/]
“hello” returns “hello”, I think [*] set(1,2,3) should return
set(1,2,3).

Or am I missing something?

On 27 Jul 2016, at 23​:29, Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev (via RT)
<perl6-bugs-followup@​perl.org> wrote​:

# New Ticket Created by Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev
# Please include the string​: [perl #​128758]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# <URL​: https://rt-archive.perl.org/perl6/Ticket/Display.html?id=128758 >

Code​:
say [*] set(1,2,3), set(4,5,6)

Result​:
9

OK, that ↑ makes sense.

Code​:
say [*] set(1,2,3)

Result​:
set(3, 1, 2)

Huh? I expected 3.

Related​: https://rt-archive.perl.org/perl6/Ticket/Display.html?id=128757 (single
arg thing
does not really work with +)
IRC discussion​: http://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2016-07-27#i_12921657

Yes, you are right. A fix that will make it numify everything will solve both tickets (probably?).
However, I am not sure what would be the final decision, so I thought that it is better to keep these tickets separated. If you think that it has to be merged, then feel free to do so.

From @MasterDuke17

On Wed Jul 27 15​:03​:26 2016, alex.jakimenko@​gmail.com wrote​:

On 2016-07-27 14​:38​:42, elizabeth wrote​:

Hmmm…. in RT #​128757 you expect a single value to return identity,
and
here you expect it not to return it? By the same reasoning that [/]
“hello” returns “hello”, I think [*] set(1,2,3) should return
set(1,2,3).

Or am I missing something?

On 27 Jul 2016, at 23​:29, Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev (via RT)
<perl6-bugs-followup@​perl.org> wrote​:

# New Ticket Created by Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev
# Please include the string​: [perl #​128758]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this
issue.
# <URL​: https://rt-archive.perl.org/perl6/Ticket/Display.html?id=128758 >

Code​:
say [*] set(1,2,3), set(4,5,6)

Result​:
9

OK, that ↑ makes sense.

Code​:
say [*] set(1,2,3)

Result​:
set(3, 1, 2)

Huh? I expected 3.

Related​: https://rt-archive.perl.org/perl6/Ticket/Display.html?id=128757 (single
arg thing
does not really work with +)
IRC discussion​: http://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2016-07-
27#i_12921657

Yes, you are right. A fix that will make it numify everything will
solve both
tickets (probably?).
However, I am not sure what would be the final decision, so I thought
that it
is better to keep these tickets separated. If you think that it has to
be
merged, then feel free to do so.

Seems to be fixed now​:
perl6 -e 'say [*] set(1,2,3)'
3
perl6 --version
This is Rakudo version 2016.09-108-g3a6cd8a built on MoarVM version 2016.09-15-gc8b4228
implementing Perl 6.c.

From @AlexDaniel

Yeah, seems so. Marking as testneeded.

It would be nice to know when exactly it was fixed, but bisectable is down. Eh.

On 2016-10-02 15​:05​:24, ddgreen@​gmail.com wrote​:

On Wed Jul 27 15​:03​:26 2016, alex.jakimenko@​gmail.com wrote​:

On 2016-07-27 14​:38​:42, elizabeth wrote​:

Hmmm…. in RT #​128757 you expect a single value to return identity,
and
here you expect it not to return it? By the same reasoning that [/]
“hello” returns “hello”, I think [*] set(1,2,3) should return
set(1,2,3).

Or am I missing something?

On 27 Jul 2016, at 23​:29, Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev (via
RT)
<perl6-bugs-followup@​perl.org> wrote​:

# New Ticket Created by Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev
# Please include the string​: [perl #​128758]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this
issue.
# <URL​: https://rt-archive.perl.org/perl6/Ticket/Display.html?id=128758 >

Code​:
say [*] set(1,2,3), set(4,5,6)

Result​:
9

OK, that ↑ makes sense.

Code​:
say [*] set(1,2,3)

Result​:
set(3, 1, 2)

Huh? I expected 3.

Related​: https://rt-archive.perl.org/perl6/Ticket/Display.html?id=128757
(single
arg thing
does not really work with +)
IRC discussion​: http://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2016-07-
27#i_12921657

Yes, you are right. A fix that will make it numify everything will
solve both
tickets (probably?).
However, I am not sure what would be the final decision, so I thought
that it
is better to keep these tickets separated. If you think that it has
to
be
merged, then feel free to do so.

Seems to be fixed now​:
perl6 -e 'say [*] set(1,2,3)'
3
perl6 --version
This is Rakudo version 2016.09-108-g3a6cd8a built on MoarVM version
2016.09-15-gc8b4228
implementing Perl 6.c.

From @AlexDaniel

On 2016-10-02 18​:18​:12, alex.jakimenko@​gmail.com wrote​:

Yeah, seems so. Marking as testneeded.

It would be nice to know when exactly it was fixed, but bisectable is
down. Eh.

On 2016-10-02 15​:05​:24, ddgreen@​gmail.com wrote​:

On Wed Jul 27 15​:03​:26 2016, alex.jakimenko@​gmail.com wrote​:

On 2016-07-27 14​:38​:42, elizabeth wrote​:

Hmmm…. in RT #​128757 you expect a single value to return
identity,
and
here you expect it not to return it? By the same reasoning that
[/]
“hello” returns “hello”, I think [*] set(1,2,3) should return
set(1,2,3).

Or am I missing something?

On 27 Jul 2016, at 23​:29, Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev (via
RT)
<perl6-bugs-followup@​perl.org> wrote​:

# New Ticket Created by Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev
# Please include the string​: [perl #​128758]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this
issue.
# <URL​: https://rt-archive.perl.org/perl6/Ticket/Display.html?id=128758 >

Code​:
say [*] set(1,2,3), set(4,5,6)

Result​:
9

OK, that ↑ makes sense.

Code​:
say [*] set(1,2,3)

Result​:
set(3, 1, 2)

Huh? I expected 3.

Related​: https://rt-archive.perl.org/perl6/Ticket/Display.html?id=128757
(single
arg thing
does not really work with +)
IRC discussion​: http://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2016-07-
27#i_12921657

Yes, you are right. A fix that will make it numify everything will
solve both
tickets (probably?).
However, I am not sure what would be the final decision, so I
thought
that it
is better to keep these tickets separated. If you think that it has
to
be
merged, then feel free to do so.

Seems to be fixed now​:
perl6 -e 'say [*] set(1,2,3)'
3
perl6 --version
This is Rakudo version 2016.09-108-g3a6cd8a built on MoarVM version
2016.09-15-gc8b4228
implementing Perl 6.c.

Ah, bisectable is now up. It is this​: rakudo/rakudo@b1c444f

From @moritz

Tests added​: https://rt-archive.perl.org/perl6//Public/Bug/Display.html?id=128758

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

From @smls

It looks like this bug hasn't been *completely* fixed​:

  dd &infix​:<+>( "2" ); # 2
  dd &infix​:<*>( "2" ); # 2

  dd [*] "2"; # 2
  dd [+] "2"; # 2

  dd reduce &infix​:<*>, "2"; # 2
  dd reduce &infix​:<+>, "2"; # "2"

i.e. it doesn't work when using the + operator with the functional form of reduce, even though it works with other numeric operators and with the meta-operator form.

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

From @dogbert17

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 12​:50​:43 -0700, smls75@​gmail.com wrote​:

It looks like this bug hasn't been *completely* fixed​:

dd &infix​:<+>( "2" ); # 2
dd &infix​:<*>( "2" ); # 2

dd [*] "2"; # 2
dd [+] "2"; # 2

dd reduce &infix​:<*>, "2"; # 2
dd reduce &infix​:<+>, "2"; # "2"

i.e. it doesn't work when using the + operator with the functional
form of reduce, even though it works with other numeric operators and
with the meta-operator form.

Last example fixed with commit (2018-01-13) rakudo/rakudo@0af3f4d

From @dogbert17

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 08​:43​:30 -0700, jan-olof.hendig@​bredband.net wrote​:

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 12​:50​:43 -0700, smls75@​gmail.com wrote​:

It looks like this bug hasn't been *completely* fixed​:

dd &infix​:<+>( "2" ); # 2
dd &infix​:<*>( "2" ); # 2

dd [*] "2"; # 2
dd [+] "2"; # 2

dd reduce &infix​:<*>, "2"; # 2
dd reduce &infix​:<+>, "2"; # "2"

i.e. it doesn't work when using the + operator with the functional
form of reduce, even though it works with other numeric operators and
with the meta-operator form.

Last example fixed with commit (2018-01-13)
rakudo/rakudo@0af3f4d

Test added with commit Raku/roast@6b0fcc2

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