<TimToady> » is supposed to be an explicit promise that you don't care about order, and there are lots of places that are not marked pure that are nevertheless effectively pure
On 2017-10-07 09:34:59, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote: > <AlexDaniel_> Zoffix: so <a b c d>».say should not be discouraged? > Interesting > <Zoffix> AlexDaniel_: well, that's based on an off-hand comment in IRC > chat. > Not a final design descision :) > > On 2017-10-07 09:32:43, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote: > > <Zoffix> AlexDaniel: FWIW jnthn++ said we'll likely make ». > > autothread > > only is > > pure routines, so no shuffling is really needed > > > > On 2017-01-02 11:31:47, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Code: > > > <a b c d>».say > > > > > > Result (2015.07): > > > d > > > b > > > c > > > a > > > > > > Result (HEAD): > > > a > > > b > > > c > > > d > > > > > > > > > The idea was that the order of processing is not defined for » > > > (though > > > the results are returned in order), therefore it is a good idea to > > > shuffle the results a little bit so that the user is not going to > > > assume that » works like .map > > > > > > Bisectable points to > > > > > > https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/a5193055bf4656cd8da67fde6e76a745458185fe > > > > > > The commit description does not identify why the previous behavior > > > was > > > removed. Is it for performance reasons? Or did it just slip through > > > the cracks? > > > > > > Anyway, it would be nice to make it process things in some weird > > > order. If the performance is such a big concern, then perhaps > > > processing just one element (e.g. the first one) in a different > > > order > > > (as last) will probably save the problem for users yet won't > > > introduce > > > a noticeable performance hit. > > > > > > > > > This is part of a much larger discussion. See also > > > https://github.com/perl6/doc/issues/1107
