Arguably it should be --> Any, since Mu vs. Any has meaning with respect to Junctions. But in this case it's just not stating a redundancy.
The way you'd phrased it makes it sound like it's an explicit no-meaningful-result, as opposed to 'we don't know or care'. On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 3:02 PM Trey Harris <t...@lopsa.org> wrote: > Ah (replying to both Brandon and JJ since their replies crossed): > > So `--> Mu` is not a sufficient and/or correct return constraint for > things like AT-POS because why, then? > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 14:56 Brandon Allbery <allber...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think they meant more like my AT-POS example: the point is the return >> value, but you can't say ahead of time what type it will have. >> >> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:48 PM Trey Harris <t...@lopsa.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 02:13 JJ Merelo <jjmer...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> El jue., 4 oct. 2018 a las 3:36, Trey Harris (<t...@lopsa.org>) >>>> escribió: >>>> >>>>> _All_ routines in Perl 6 return _something._ A lack of a "-->" simply >>>>> indicates stylistically that the return is not useful because it's >>>>> whatever >>>>> "falls off the end". (There's a bit of variance here as I'm not sure it's >>>>> a >>>>> convention everyone has followed.) It's equivalent to "--> Mu" because >>>>> anything that could "fall of the end" is Mu. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, it means that it's not constrained to a type. It can still return >>>> something, but it can be anything. >>>> >>> >>> >>> I get all that, except for the "No" at the front. ;-) >>> >>> Or were you talking about the "not useful" bit? Yes, of course in any >>> given codebase, the lack of a return value has no more or less meaning than >>> a lack of any constraint. The programmer may not like using constraints at >>> all and treats Perl 6 like Perl 5 in the respect of wanting arbitrarily >>> mungible values. >>> >>> But the word "stylistically" was important, as I was responding to >>> Todd's question about the docs—I think a lack of a return value in the docs >>> (at least, the ones I could come up with in a grep pattern on my checkout >>> of docs) does tend to indicate that the return is not useful, that the >>> routine is a "procedure" run for its side effects rather than for >>> evaluation. >>> >>> Is that what you meant? >>> >>> If you were saying in "it can still return something, but can be >>> anything", that "anything ⊃ (is a strict superset of) `Mu`", then I >>> don't understand, because I thought all values conformed to Mu. >>> >>> >> >> -- >> brandon s allbery kf8nh >> allber...@gmail.com >> > -- brandon s allbery kf8nh allber...@gmail.com
