Still reproducible (2017.11, HEAD(5929887))

On 2015-02-01 11:48:18, masak wrote:
> <masak> m: sub &foo() {}; say "alive"
> <camelia> rakudo-moar 6e182d: OUTPUT«===SORRY!=== Error while
> compiling /tmp/GE7JBiJGWP␤Missing block␤at ------> sub ⏏&foo() {}; say
> "alive"␤ expecting any of:␤ new name to be defined␤»
> <masak> (a) I'm wondering if this shouldn't be allowed, and mean the
> same as `sub foo`
> <masak> (b) the error message is LTA, but I don't have any good ideas
> for what it ought to be
> <raydiak> wrt (b), maybe "invalid sub name" or "invalid character in
> sub name" or along those lines? perhaps additionally a specific
> mention of no leading '&' if that's the first char it saw in the name?
> <raydiak> I guess it'll be the same message we see when botching the
> body of an anonymous sub too, though...
> * raydiak wouldn't mind allowing a leading &, either, but the message
> will still be LTA in other cases
> <masak> troo
> * masak submits rakudobug

Reply via email to