# New Ticket Created by Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev
# Please include the string: [perl #131766]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=131766 >
It should be possible to specify the source address of outgoing
In my opinion, to decide whether it's a bug, you shouldn't look at the
implementation of [X] and [X*], but rather at its practical use.
In what cases would you use it, and what do you expect it to return when
your list of lists happens to be one list?
That's what I was trying to do with my
In my opinion, to decide whether it's a bug, you shouldn't look at the
implementation of [X] and [X*], but rather at its practical use.
In what cases would you use it, and what do you expect it to return when
your list of lists happens to be one list?
That's what I was trying to do with my
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 07:45:16 -0700, joshu...@gmail.com wrote:
> My thinking is that doing `[X] ((3,2),)` is kinda like doing `[X]
> ((3,2),Empty)`...
Assuming I understand your analogy correctly, that's exactly what's *not*
happening, and is why this RT exists. See:
dd [X] 3, 2; #
Alright, it seems that rakudo is not entirely incorrect here. See this
discussion: https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6-dev/2017-07-18#i_14885863
TL;DR, one should use something like this:
whenever $proc.print(“one\ntwo\nthree\nfour”) { $proc.close-stdin }
So it seems that it's not a bug, but a
$proc.print is asynchronous while $proc.close-stdin is not. In some cases $proc
simply does not get the input because we closed its stdin before printing
anything.
If .close-stdin is meant to by synchronous, this needs a doc patch. Otherwise
we'd probably need to await any outstanding write
