[perl #125614] [BUG] Can't store whole 1&2 junctions in Mu-keyed hash in Rakudo

[Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev via RT]

Still reproducible (2017.11, HEAD(5929887))

On 2015-07-14 22:32:47, elizabeth wrote:
>
> > On 14 Jul 2015, at 12:29, Carl Mäsak (via RT) <perl6-bugs-
> > follo...@perl.org> wrote:
> >
> > # New Ticket Created by "Carl Mäsak"
> > # Please include the string: [perl #125614]
> > # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> > # <URL: https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=125614 >
> >
> >
> > <jnthn> my %h{Mu}; # now you can store objects as keys
> > <jnthn> m: my %xy{Mu};
> > <camelia> rakudo-moar dd3bcc: ( no output )
> > <jnthn> Note the keys there are objects, not strings.
> > <moritz> m: my %xy{Mu}; %xy{1&2} = 3; say %xy.perl
> > <camelia> rakudo-moar ccb41d: OUTPUT«Hash[Any,Mu].new(1 => 3, 2 =>
> > 3)␤»
> > <moritz> bug
> > <jnthn> hah...I wonder if the postcircumfix sub is to blame...
> > * masak submits rakudobug
>
> Some more tests:
> [22:14:53] <lizmat> Looking at #125614 now:
> [22:15:02] <lizmat> m: my %xy{Mu}; %xy{1&2} = 3; say %xy.perl #
> wrong
> [22:15:02] <+camelia> rakudo-moar 8957fc: OUTPUT«Hash[Any,Mu].new(1
> => 3, 2 => 3)␤»
> [22:15:25] <lizmat> m: my %xy{Mu}; %xy.AT-KEY(1&2) = 3; say
> %xy.perl # is this right?
> [22:15:25] <+camelia> rakudo-moar 8957fc:
> OUTPUT«Hash[Any,Mu].new(all(1 => 3, 2 => 3))␤»
> [22:15:43] <lizmat> m: my %xy{Mu}; %xy.ASSIGN-KEY(1&2,3); say
> %xy.perl # is this right?
> [22:15:43] <+camelia> rakudo-moar 8957fc:
> OUTPUT«Hash[Any,Mu].new(all(1 => 3, 2 => 3))␤»
> [22:16:20] <lizmat> m: my %xy{Mu}; %xy.BIND-KEY(1&2,3); say
> %xy.perl # and this?
> [22:16:21] <+camelia> rakudo-moar 8957fc:
> OUTPUT«Hash[Any,Mu].new(all(1 => 3, 2 => 3))␤»
> [22:17:53] <ShimmerFairy> Hm. Unless there's something in the
> specs stating otherwise, I'd think %xy{1&2} = 3 would make 1 => 3, 2
> => 3 , since it is a Junction
> [22:17:53] <lizmat> m: my %xy{Any}; %xy{1&2} = 3; say %xy.perl #
> and this?
> [22:17:53] <+camelia> rakudo-moar 8957fc: OUTPUT«Hash[Any,Any].new(1
> => 3, 2 => 3)␤»
> [22:17:57] <ShimmerFairy> m: sub foo($a) { say $a }; foo(1&2)
> [22:17:58] <+camelia> rakudo-moar 8957fc: OUTPUT«1␤2␤»
> [22:18:18] <ShimmerFairy> ^ that's my reason for thinking {1&2}
> is the one doing the right thing.
> [22:18:58] <lizmat> not if it is a typed hash with Mu: then the
> autothreading should not work (is what conception of the problem is)
> [22:20:58] <ShimmerFairy> Oh, I see. Well, I think in that case
> it should be any(1, 2) => 3 , since the Junction is the key (I don't
> think all(1 => 3, 2 => 3) is right, and I don't see how it could be
> immediately)
>
> So, assuming AT-KEY is doing the right thing, and looking at the
> circumfix {} code:
>
> multi sub postcircumfix:<{ }>( \SELF, \key ) is rw {
> SELF.AT-KEY(key);
> }
>
> Since we bind the key value to what is being passed to AT-KEY, and AT-
> KEY is doing the right thing, I can only assume there is something
> screwy going on with “is rw”. And that is going right into the
> bowels, and I’m out of my league :-)
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
>
> Liz