HaloO, John Macdonald wrote:
Unless autothreading is also implied by conditionals, $y and $z would have significantly different results; $y === any(undef,undef,undef) while $z === any(1,2,3).
This is why I'm opting for statical analysis of auto-threaded conditionals.
But, if autothreading *is* implied by conditionals, where do the threads get joined?
Right after the conditional, of course. From there it could be necessary to branch into both blocks however if you have a result of any(0,1) and an else block. ?? !! essentially behaves like an if else. Question is how this applies to user defined control structures.
I have a feeling that the autothreading has to happen essentially at the point of the creation of the junction to avoid getting a result from a junction that none of the joined quantities is capable of justifying (such as the one described ealier of (-4|4) matching the criteria to be in the range 0..1). I suspect that juctions will be perl6's "action-at-a-distance" hazard. (With quantum entanglement, you get action-at-a-distance effects in the real world.
Quantum entanglement is no action at a distance because you can't transfer anything with the collapse. The local appearance is that of a normal quantum measurement. Only if you communicate information by traditional means you can compare *measurements*. The common misconception of Quantum Mechanics is that it is about small things whereas a two photons system can span galaxies.
When we import them into a computer language, the resulting action-at-a-distance should come as no surprise - except for its inherent surprise/hazard nature.) Now, if it is acceptable for -4|4 to return true for 0 <= $x <= 1 when tested directly in an expression, but to return false if it is tested in a subroutine, then perl6 junctions are not really modelling quantum superpositions
I agree. We should make sure that junctions model quantum computations. Regards, TSa. -- "The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity" -- C.A.R. Hoare "Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it." -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan
