Re: [perl #132281] [REGRESSION] .gist of a bag used to say “bag()”, now it says “Bag()” ("blogger".comb.Bag) [Request: ET-8659 is created]

2018-04-12 Thread dcu 



	
		
			
			

	
		 
	

			
			
		
	





	
		
			
			

	
		
	

			
			
		
	





	
		
			
			
			

	
		
	
	
		
		
			

	
	Thank you for your email request. Your request ID is I-1531427 
	
	
	
  

 



  
  

  
  

  














  












  



  


DCU Home   
Branches   
Branch/ATM Locator   
Contact


  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  Our Privacy Policy protects your privacy and we will never sell your name or email address. 
  Federally insured by NCUA. DCU is an Equal Housing Lender. 
  Please do not reply 
  to this email. For questions or additional information, please email d...@dcu.org. 
  
  
  
  220 Donald Lynch Boulevard, PO Box 9130, Marlborough, MA 01752-9130
  508.263.6700 • 800.328.8797
  ABA Routing Number: 211391825NMLS#: 466914
  
  
  ©  Digital Federal Credit Union
  



  

 

   
 

[perl #132281] [REGRESSION] .gist of a bag used to say “bag()”, now it says “Bag()” ("blogger".comb.Bag)

2018-04-12 Thread Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev via RT 
https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/pull/1722#issuecomment-380779444

On 2017-10-12 22:37:24, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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.

Re: [perl #132281] [REGRESSION] .gist of a bag used to say “bag()”, now it says “Bag()” ("blogger".comb.Bag)

2018-04-12 Thread Elizabeth Mattijsen 
yes, this can be rejected.  Unfortunately I don’t do RT so someone else will 
need to do that.

> On 13 Oct 2017, at 13:48, Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev 
>  wrote:
> 
> Oh. I guess this has to be rejected then.
> 
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Elizabeth Mattijsen  wrote:
> 
> > On 13 Oct 2017, at 07:37, Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev (via RT) 
> >  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.
> > # 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
>

Re: [perl #132281] [REGRESSION] .gist of a bag used to say “bag()”, now it says “Bag()” ("blogger".comb.Bag)

2017-10-13 Thread Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev 
Oh. I guess this has to be rejected then.

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Elizabeth Mattijsen  wrote:

>
> > 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.
> > # 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
>

Re: [perl #132281] [REGRESSION] .gist of a bag used to say “bag()”, now it says “Bag()” ("blogger".comb.Bag)

2017-10-13 Thread Elizabeth Mattijsen 

> On 13 Oct 2017, at 07:37, Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev (via RT) 
>  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. 
> # 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

[perl #132281] [REGRESSION] .gist of a bag used to say “bag()”, now it says “Bag()” ("blogger".comb.Bag)

2017-10-12 Thread via RT 
# 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. 
# 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.