Jon Lang wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
This is basically a non-problem. Junctions have one public method,
.eigenstates, which is vanishingly unlikely to be used by accident by
any mere mortal any time in the next 100 years, give or take a year.
If someone does happen to be programming quantum mechanics in Perl 6,
they're probably smart enough to work around the presence of a
reserved--well, it's not even a reserved word-- a reserved method name.
Actually, the problem isn't with '.eigenstates'; the problem is with
'.perl'. If I'm viewing a Junction of items as a single indeterminate
item, I'd expect $J.perl to return a Junction of the items' perl by
default. Admittedly though, even that isn't much of an issue, seeing
as how you _can_ get that result by saying something to the effect of
"Junction of $J.eigenstates.«perl" - the only tricky part being how to
decide which kind of junction to use (e.g., any, all, one, none) when
putting the perl-ized eigenstates back together. (And how _would_ you
do that?) This would represent another corner-case where the
programmer would be tripped up by a simplistic understanding of what a
Junction is; but being a corner-case, that's probably acceptable.
I would assume that invoking .perl on a Junction would result in Perl code
consisting of the appropriate any/all/etc expression. -- Darren Duncan
