From @masak

<yoleaux> 01​:36Z <diakopter> masak​: unexpected in rakudo​: say so "a"
x 1_0 ~~ /a ** 1_0/ says False
<masak> r​: say so "a" x 1_0 ~~ /a ** 1_0/
<camelia> rakudo 9faa30​: OUTPUT«False␤»
<masak> r​: say so "a" ~~ /a ** 1_0/
<camelia> rakudo 9faa30​: OUTPUT«False␤»
<masak> r​: say so "a_0" ~~ /a ** 1_0/
<camelia> rakudo 9faa30​: OUTPUT«True␤»
<moritz> it's parsed as /[a ** 1] _0/
<masak> moritz​: yes.
<moritz> masak​: and TimToady++ already patched it in STD
<jnthn> So just needs somebody to nab the patch :)
* masak submits rakudobug
<masak> r​: say so "a" ~~ / a ** 1e0 / # what about this one?
<camelia> rakudo 9faa30​: OUTPUT«False␤»
<masak> r​: say so "ae0" ~~ / a ** 1e0 /
<camelia> rakudo 9faa30​: OUTPUT«True␤»
<moritz> masak​: I'd think it would make sense to require a word
boundary after the number that follows a **
<moritz> number of reptitions are inherently integers, so I don't see
the point of allowing floating-point numbers here
<masak> moritz​: I think I agree.

From @jnthn

On Thu Aug 29 02​:01​:49 2013, masak wrote​:

<yoleaux> 01​:36Z <diakopter> masak​: unexpected in rakudo​: say so "a"
x 1_0 ~~ /a ** 1_0/ says False
<masak> r​: say so "a" x 1_0 ~~ /a ** 1_0/
<camelia> rakudo 9faa30​: OUTPUT«False␤»
<masak> r​: say so "a" ~~ /a ** 1_0/
<camelia> rakudo 9faa30​: OUTPUT«False␤»
<masak> r​: say so "a_0" ~~ /a ** 1_0/
<camelia> rakudo 9faa30​: OUTPUT«True␤»
<moritz> it's parsed as /[a ** 1] _0/
<masak> moritz​: yes.
<moritz> masak​: and TimToady++ already patched it in STD
<jnthn> So just needs somebody to nab the patch :)
* masak submits rakudobug

Patched nabbed​:

say so "a" x 1_0 ~~ /a ** 1_0/
True
say so "a" ~~ /a ** 1_0/
True

Tagging testneeded.

/jnthn

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

From @FROGGS

Test is at Raku/roast@c3bfab8996

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