I think we need a slight wording improvement in S03. Currently S03:1772 says that the C<list> contextualizer is equivalent to C<@()>. However, S05:2328 also says that C<@()> is a shorthand for C<@($/)>.
Taken together, these would seem to imply that C<list()> is equivalent to C<@($/)>, which I suspect is not the case. (I would expect C<list()> to return an empty List.) I'm guessing that S03 should be clarified to say something like the list contextualizer is equivalent to C<@(...)>, to make it clearer(?) that it's the form that expects an argument. If the above is correct for C<list>, then similar arguments can likely be made for C<item> / C<$()> and C<hash> / C<%()>. On a similar vein, is C<item> a named unary? In other words, is C< item $a, $b > equivalent to C< item($a), $b > or C< item($a,$b) > ? Thanks! Pm
