On 2016-10-30 5:45 AM, yary wrote:
I'm not sure I entirely understand the proposal- does it change Inf aka ∞ ?
Part of the issue I think is that the existing "Inf" aka "∞" don't seem to be
very clearly defined.
What I could find so far, at least with respect to Ranges, is that they are just
On Mon Jan 18 06:00:47 2016, gfldex wrote:
> sub foo(::T $t --> T){ T.new };
> my Int $i = 42;
> foo($i);
>
> # OUTPUT«Type check failed for return value; expected T but got Int in
> # sub foo at /tmp/HqdmxVFmny line 1 in block at /tmp/HqdmxVFmny
> # line 1»
As a status update: This
This works now:
$ $ perl6 -e 'class A {has Str $.n; has Str @.m}; for A.^attributes -> $attr
{say $attr.name, $attr.type};'
$!n(Str)
@!m(Positional[Str])
It looks like the problem back then was related to using gist. I tried with an
older rakudo:
$ $ ./perl6-m --version
This is Rakudo version
This works now as expected:
$ ./perl6-j -e 'my \T = ($_ for ^1); say T'
(0)
§ ./perl6-j -e 'my \T = ($_ for ^2); say T'
(0 1)
$ ./perl6-j -e 'say ($_ for ^2)'
(0 1)
I added two tests to S04-statements/for.t with commit
https://github.com/perl6/roast/commit/fc9a4a8523
I'm closing this ticket
I'm not sure I entirely understand the proposal- does it change Inf aka ∞ ?
Otherwise I like it, and prefer the X::NegInf and X::PosInf,spellings as
being easy-to-understand & a good Huffman-encoding.
Before/AfterEverything are also easy to understand, and would be as natural
to use for sorting
