John Macdonald wrote:
Unless autothreading is also implied by conditionals, $y
and $z would have significantly different results; $y ===
any(undef,undef,undef) while $z === any(1,2,3).

This is why I'm opting for statical analysis of auto-threaded

 But, if
autothreading *is* implied by conditionals, where do the
threads get joined?

Right after the conditional, of course. From there it could
be necessary to branch into both blocks however if you have
a result of any(0,1) and an else block. ?? !! essentially
behaves like an if else. Question is how this applies to
user defined control structures.

 I have a feeling that the autothreading
has to happen essentially at the point of the creation of the
junction to avoid getting a result from a junction that none
of the joined quantities is capable of justifying (such as
the one described ealier of (-4|4) matching the criteria to be
in the range 0..1).  I suspect that juctions will be perl6's
"action-at-a-distance" hazard.  (With quantum entanglement,
you get action-at-a-distance effects in the real world.

Quantum entanglement is no action at a distance because
you can't transfer anything with the collapse. The local
appearance is that of a normal quantum measurement. Only
if you communicate information by traditional means you
can compare *measurements*. The common misconception of
Quantum Mechanics is that it is about small things whereas
a two photons system can span galaxies.

When we import them into a computer language, the resulting
action-at-a-distance should come as no surprise - except for
its inherent surprise/hazard nature.)  Now, if it is acceptable
for -4|4 to return true for 0 <= $x <= 1 when tested directly
in an expression, but to return false if it is tested in a
subroutine, then perl6 junctions are not really modelling
quantum superpositions

I agree. We should make sure that junctions model quantum

Regards, TSa.

"The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity" -- C.A.R. Hoare
"Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it." -- A.J. Perlis
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12  -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Reply via email to