bartolin (>):
> Actually I don't think S03 says that '1,3,5 ... 8' should act as
> '1,3,5 ... *'
>
> As I understand it '1,3,5 ... 8' gives an infinite list with all even
> numbers. '1,3,5 ... *' also gives an infinite list with all even
> numbers -- but this one is lazy.
>
> So there is a difference in behaviour: When assigning to an array with
> 'my @odd = 1,3,5 ... 8;' all elements of the sequence have to be
> computed and smart matched agains '8'. This match never results in
> True and therefore we get a timeout, finally. In the other case ('my
> @odd = 1,3,5 ... *') "the sequence has no limit" (quote from S03) and
> the assignment can be lazy e.g. the values don't have to be computed
> and smart matched against something.
I think this reasoning is sound, and whereas it would be awesome if we could
always read the mind of the user and not get stuck in infinite loops trying to
compute infinite sequences -- the place we are is kind of a local minimum and
has an internal consistency.
That is, we could perhaps do better in the future, and not hang on this one.
But it's not clear to me how to do that without making the current model more
complex for relatively little gain.
Rejecting ticket.
