> On 02 Sep 2015, at 14:02, Matija Papec <mpapec2...@yandex.com> wrote:
> 02.09.2015, 10:46, "The Sidhekin" <sidhe...@gmail.com>:
>>> So it seems that perl6 handles lexicals inside while (<>){} one-liners
>>> differently.
>>
>> Ah, yes. Interesting. Run-time effect of C<my> not happening
>> repeatedly. How would that deparse?
>
>
> Good question, I wouldn't be surprised that -n switch has some kind of
> special behavior.
>
>
>> $ seq 3 | perl6 -e 'for lines() { my %d; %d{$_}++; END { say keys %d } }'
>> 3
>> $ seq 3 | perl6 -e 'for lines() { state %d; %d{$_}++; END { say keys %d } }'
>> 1 2 3
>> $
>>
>> … and while I'm comparing:
>>
>> $ seq 3 | perl6 -e 'for lines() { my %d; %d{$_}++; END { say keys %d } }'
>> 3
>> $ seq 3 | perl -E 'while (<>) { my %d; $d{$_}++; END { say keys %d } }'
>> 1
>>
>> … I need me a new mental model. :-)
>
> I think this is covered somewhere in RFC; perl6 repeatedly overwrites END{}
> block where last one references last %d definition (say %d.WHICH).
> perl5 on the other hand stays with first END{} block (say \%d).
A much shorter way, using Perl 6 features:
$ seq 3 | perl6 -e ‘lines.Set.keys.say’
lines() reads lazily from STDIN and chomps them
Set is a coercer that turns the input into a Set
then take the keys of the set and show them
Liz
