> On 13 Oct 2017, at 07:37, Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev (via RT) > <perl6-bugs-follo...@perl.org> wrote: > > # New Ticket Created by Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev > # Please include the string: [perl #132281] > # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. > # <URL: https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=132281 > > > > Code: > say "blogger".comb.Bag # if you want for all the letters > > ¦«2015.12»: > bag(r, l, g(2), b, e, o) > > ¦«2016.06»: > bag(r, l, g(2), b, e, o) > > ¦«2016.12»: > bag(r, l, g(2), b, e, o) > > ¦«2017.06»: > bag(e, l, b, g(2), o, r) > > ¦«f72be0f130cf»: > Bag(b, e, g(2), l, o, r) > > > Possible IRC discussion: > https://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2017-10-09#i_15278073 > > > Bisectable: (2017-07-20) > https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/21b9a720c75656b13805611544aa5ee64c4924ae > > > To be honest, I don't know if that's a reasonable ticket. I guess it doesn't > really matter if it's bag or Bag, but I'm pretty sure that the change was > unintentional so I'm submitting it as a ticket. > > Maybe “bag()” is better because it resembles an actual syntax. Kind of. Judge > yourself.
The two are *not* the same. Bag(foo) is the same as foo.Bag. Which implies taking all values as is. Whereas bag() implies looking at the values in the same way as “.new-from-pairs”. Observe: $ 6 'dd bag({a => 42}); dd Bag({ a => 42 })' (:a(42)).Bag ("a"=>42).Bag