> 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
