Hello, I'm interested in knowing the differences between the return values when "say" is used compared to "put". My understanding is that "put" returns Raku's internal representation of a value held by a variable, while "say" is merely "put" with the .gist method called on it (a "human readable", often-abbreviated return value).
Below I do "S///" (non-destructive) and "s///" (destructive) text replacement on a three line text file in bash line [1]. In bash line [2], the full substituted text file is correctly returned; in bash line [3] using "say" only the $/ match string is returned. So far so good. However, a virtually-identical call in bash line [4] using "put" instead of "say" returns an error for the first line of the target text file: "Use of Nil in string context in block at -e line 1". [1] homedir$ cat demo1.txt this is a test, I love Unix, I like Linux too, [2] homedir$ perl6 -ne 'say S/love|like/admire/;' demo1.txt this is a test, I admire Unix, I admire Linux too, [3] homedir$ perl6 -ne 'say s/love|like/admire/;' demo1.txt Nil ｢love｣ ｢like｣ [4] homedir$ perl6 -ne 'put s/love|like/admire/;' demo1.txt Use of Nil in string context in block at -e line 1 love like [5] homedir$ I'm really trying to understand this error message: doesn't Raku know that this is a text replacement operation? How can a 'Nil' be correctly represented when called by "say", but throw an error when called by "put"? If the value is absent at the Raku representational level and throws an error, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the same case would hold for "say"? And finally, does this "say / put" difference mean that some textual information will be lost from return values (because "say" will have to be used instead of "put" to avoid errorring-out)? Any enlightenment appreciated, TIA, Bill.
