Playing with pugs, I ran into this corner case:
sub f($x) { say $x; }
f {1}.(); # ok, outputs 1
sub f([EMAIL PROTECTED]) { say @_; }
f {1}.(); # outputs block, tries to call a method from the return of say,
dies
Whitespace after f doesn't change the behaviour (in either case). Is this
behaviour
On 10/4/05, Miroslav Silovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Playing with pugs, I ran into this corner case:
sub f($x) { say $x; }
f {1}.(); # ok, outputs 1
sub f([EMAIL PROTECTED]) { say @_; }
f {1}.(); # outputs block, tries to call a method from the return of say,
dies
Whitespace after f
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
On 10/4/05, Miroslav Silovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Playing with pugs, I ran into this corner case:
sub f($x) { say $x; }
f {1}.(); # ok, outputs 1
IIRC, this puts f into the named unary precedence level
which is below method postfix. Thus we get
(f ({1}.()))
On 10/5/05, TSa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IIRC, this puts f into the named unary precedence level
which is below method postfix.
We're trying to stop using the words below and above for
precedence. Use looser and tighter instead, as there is not
ambiguity with those.
(f ({1}.()))
((f
Luke Palmer wrote:
With parentheses:
print((length foo) 4)
print(3 4)
So this was quite a disturbing bug.
This is now also quite a fixed bug. :-)
However:
f:{1}.()
still parses as
(f(:{1})).()
as the adverbial block form takes precedence. Is that also wrong?
On 10/5/05, Autrijus Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However:
f:{1}.()
still parses as
(f(:{1})).()
as the adverbial block form takes precedence. Is that also wrong?
No, that seems right to me, much in the same way that:
$x.{1}.{2}
Binds to the left.
Luke
