From @masak

<masak> nom​: sub infix​:<*+> ($a,$b) { $a * $b + $b }; say 2 *+ 5
<p6eval> nom e95935​: OUTPUT«10␤»
* masak submits rakudobug
<jnthn> wtf
<moritz> nom​: sub infix​:<*+> ($a,$b) { $a * $b + $b }; say infix​:<*+>(2, 5)
<p6eval> nom e95935​: OUTPUT«15␤»
<felher> hm. Does nom think its 2 *(+5)?
<jnthn> yeah but...even the cheating LTM that Rakudo's parser depends
on is meant to get *that* case right.
<masak> that's why I'm submitting it as a bug :)
<jnthn> Well, I dobut I'm gonna hunt down a bug in a load of code I
plan to eliminate as soon as I get the tuits. :)
<jnthn> Hopefully the new LTM engine gets it righter.

From @jnthn

On Tue Feb 28 13​:27​:21 2012, masak wrote​:

<masak> nom​: sub infix​:<*+> ($a,$b) { $a * $b + $b }; say 2 *+ 5
<p6eval> nom e95935​: OUTPUT«10␤»
* masak submits rakudobug
<jnthn> wtf
<moritz> nom​: sub infix​:<*+> ($a,$b) { $a * $b + $b }; say
infix​:<*+>(2, 5)
<p6eval> nom e95935​: OUTPUT«15␤»
<felher> hm. Does nom think its 2 *(+5)?
<jnthn> yeah but...even the cheating LTM that Rakudo's parser depends
on is meant to get *that* case right.
<masak> that's why I'm submitting it as a bug :)
<jnthn> Well, I dobut I'm gonna hunt down a bug in a load of code I
plan to eliminate as soon as I get the tuits. :)
<jnthn> Hopefully the new LTM engine gets it righter.

It does​:

sub infix​:<*+> ($a,$b) { $a * $b + $b }; say 2 *+ 5
15

Tagging testneeded.

/jnthn

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

From @moritz

Now tested in S06-operator-overloading/sub.t

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