From @masak

<diakopter> r​: module foo; macro foo() { }; foo; foo(); # foo works;
foo() doesn't
<p6eval> rakudo 64208d​: OUTPUT«invoke() not implemented in class
'foo'␤ in block at /tmp/JEyQXBbqaU​:1␤␤»
<masak> diakopter​: both should work.
<diakopter> masak​: both should invoke macro foo? or one should invoke
macro foo and the other invoke class foo (like it's doing)?
<masak> diakopter​: both should invoke macro foo, IMO.
<masak> r​: module foo; sub foo() { say "OH HAI" }; foo; foo()
<p6eval> rakudo 64208d​: OUTPUT«invoke() not implemented in class
'foo'␤ in block at /tmp/n8jWXMP4lX​:1␤␤»
<masak> same there; really unrelated to macros, I think.
<diakopter> oh
* masak submits diakopter's rakudobug

From @masak

<jnthn> module foo; sub foo() { say "OH HAI" }; foo; foo()
<jnthn> In this one, foo() parses as a coercion.
<masak> jnthn​: oh!
* masak adds that to the appropriate rakudobug
<jnthn> Anyway, it's right it doesn't call the sub. Just an LTA error I
guess...though I ain't immediately sure what to do with it...

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

From @usev6

There are no error messages anymore​:

$ perl6 -e 'module foo; macro foo() { }; foo; foo();'

$ perl6 -e 'module foo; sub foo() { say "OH HAI" }; foo; foo()'

As I understand it, both 'foo' and 'foo()' are invoking the class. (It is possible to call the sub with '&foo()', though.)

$ perl6 -e 'module foo; sub foo() { say "OH HAI" }; say foo; say foo()'
(foo)
(foo(Any))

In the light of jnthn's comments, this looks right to me. So, is this closable with tests or did I misunderstand?

From @skids

I was looking into making some worries about failing to shadow
constants and classes (when you might expect to) for this.
While trying to write a $*W.describe_symbol to turn a symbol
back into a user-friendly non-modifier like "class","role",
"variable","constant", etc. I was having a hard time figuring
out where the information about what scope/kind of symbol
one was dealing with was stored.

Turns out it is not, as far as I can see, and so we have this​:

(07​:08​:46 PM) skids​: m​: sub a (\b) { EVAL "sub b() \{ 42.say }; b().say;" }; a(2); a(Str) # found while tryng to make worries for RT#​115608
(07​:08​:47 PM) camelia​: rakudo-moar ca25b0​: OUTPUT«42␤True␤(Str(Any))␤»
(07​:09​:53 PM) skids​: Nothing seems to store whether a !is​::concrete was syntactically a constant.

...which might be a bit more of an interpreterish semantic than we want?

From @jnthn

On Mon Nov 05 09​:39​:33 2012, masak wrote​:

<jnthn> module foo; sub foo() { say "OH HAI" }; foo; foo()
<jnthn> In this one, foo() parses as a coercion.
<masak> jnthn​: oh!
* masak adds that to the appropriate rakudobug
<jnthn> Anyway, it's right it doesn't call the sub. Just an LTA error I
guess...though I ain't immediately sure what to do with it...

It's ruled that forming a coercion type is the correct behavior​:

http://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2015-11-26#i_11605891

And current Rakudo does indeed form one. Tests covering this behavior in S02-names-vars/names.t.

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