In my opinion, to decide whether it's a bug, you shouldn't look at the
implementation of [X] and [X*], but rather at its practical use.
In what cases would you use it, and what do you expect it to return when
your list of lists happens to be one list?
That's what I was trying to do with my
In my opinion, to decide whether it's a bug, you shouldn't look at the
implementation of [X] and [X*], but rather at its practical use.
In what cases would you use it, and what do you expect it to return when
your list of lists happens to be one list?
That's what I was trying to do with my
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 07:45:16 -0700, joshu...@gmail.com wrote:
> My thinking is that doing `[X] ((3,2),)` is kinda like doing `[X]
> ((3,2),Empty)`...
Assuming I understand your analogy correctly, that's exactly what's *not*
happening, and is why this RT exists. See:
dd [X] 3, 2; #
I agree that things like
my @divisors = [X] @prime-factor-powers;
my @transpose = [Z] @matrix;
look perfectly reasonable and elegant, and the fact that the single-sub-list
edge-case ruins them is regrettable. Nor can I image any scenario where the
current behavior of that edge-case
I'd agree that it is a bug, yes. Well, the reason why it happens might be
justified, but this is probably one of the fattest traps I've seen so far. I
really think we should come up with a way to eliminate this trap somehow. Not
sure how, but there must be a way and I really recommend anybody
That may indeed explain why it works the way it does, but that doesn't
mean it isn't a bug. IMO it certainly is; [X] and [X*] don't work as
advertised.
Let me explain how I found this bug.
I'm generating a list of divisors for a number. I already have the
prime factorization of that number,
That may indeed explain why it works the way it does, but that doesn't
mean it isn't a bug. IMO it certainly is; [X] and [X*] don't work as
advertised.
Let me explain how I found this bug.
I'm generating a list of divisors for a number. I already have the
prime factorization of that number,
I think this is related: https://github.com/perl6/doc/issues/1400
On 2017-07-01 12:25:39, pe...@mscha.org wrote:
> This is OK:
>
> > say [X] ((1,2,3), (4,5,6));
> ((1 4) (1 5) (1 6) (2 4) (2 5) (2 6) (3 4) (3 5) (3 6))
> > say [X*] ((1,2,3), (4,5,6));
> (4 5 6 8 10 12 12 15 18)
>
> ... but this
