Re: [perl #132352] Set operators unfriendly to mutable types

2017-11-18 Thread Elizabeth Mattijsen via RT
Hmmm…. I guess this one does… good point! :-) > On 18 Nov 2017, at 17:57, Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev via RT > wrote: > > Does it mean that this now needs tests? > > On 2017-10-30 06:42:25, elizabeth wrote: >>> On 24 Oct 2017, at 12:56, Zoffix Znet via RT >> follo...@perl.org> wrote: >>

Re: [perl #132352] Set operators unfriendly to mutable types

2017-11-18 Thread Elizabeth Mattijsen
Hmmm…. I guess this one does… good point! :-) > On 18 Nov 2017, at 17:57, Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev via RT > wrote: > > Does it mean that this now needs tests? > > On 2017-10-30 06:42:25, elizabeth wrote: >>> On 24 Oct 2017, at 12:56, Zoffix Znet via RT >> follo...@perl.org> wrote: >>

[perl #132352] Set operators unfriendly to mutable types

2017-11-18 Thread Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev via RT
Does it mean that this now needs tests? On 2017-10-30 06:42:25, elizabeth wrote: > > On 24 Oct 2017, at 12:56, Zoffix Znet via RT > follo...@perl.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:12:58 -0700, sml...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 05:23:55 -0700, c...@zoffix.com wrote: > >> The "s

Re: [perl #132352] Set operators unfriendly to mutable types

2017-10-30 Thread Elizabeth Mattijsen via RT
> On 24 Oct 2017, at 12:56, Zoffix Znet via RT > wrote: > On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:12:58 -0700, sml...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 05:23:55 -0700, c...@zoffix.com wrote: >> The "solution", IMO, would not be to make your quoted example work (by >> adding further special cases to the retu

Re: [perl #132352] Set operators unfriendly to mutable types

2017-10-30 Thread Elizabeth Mattijsen
> On 24 Oct 2017, at 12:56, Zoffix Znet via RT > wrote: > On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:12:58 -0700, sml...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 05:23:55 -0700, c...@zoffix.com wrote: >> The "solution", IMO, would not be to make your quoted example work (by >> adding further special cases to the retu

[perl #132352] Set operators unfriendly to mutable types

2017-10-24 Thread Zoffix Znet via RT
Rejecting 'cause it's a misunderstanding of how things work in OP. Opened the suggestion for making `%` sigil work in https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/issues/1203

[perl #132352] Set operators unfriendly to mutable types

2017-10-24 Thread Zoffix Znet via RT
Rejecting 'cause it's a misunderstanding of how things work in OP. Opened the suggestion for making `%` sigil work in https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/issues/1203

[perl #132352] Set operators unfriendly to mutable types

2017-10-24 Thread Zoffix Znet via RT
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:12:58 -0700, sml...@gmail.com wrote: > On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 05:23:55 -0700, c...@zoffix.com wrote: > > Set operators are a lot less useful with mutable types, like SetHash, > > because > > even when one of the operands is a SetHash, they still return a Set, > > making > > cons

[perl #132352] Set operators unfriendly to mutable types

2017-10-24 Thread Zoffix Znet via RT
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:12:58 -0700, sml...@gmail.com wrote: > On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 05:23:55 -0700, c...@zoffix.com wrote: > > Set operators are a lot less useful with mutable types, like SetHash, > > because > > even when one of the operands is a SetHash, they still return a Set, > > making > > cons

[perl #132352] Set operators unfriendly to mutable types

2017-10-23 Thread Sam S. via RT
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 05:23:55 -0700, c...@zoffix.com wrote: > Set operators are a lot less useful with mutable types, like SetHash, > because > even when one of the operands is a SetHash, they still return a Set, > making > constructs like `∖=` or `∪=` entirely unusable: > > my $days = SetHash.new:

[perl #132352] Set operators unfriendly to mutable types

2017-10-23 Thread via RT
# New Ticket Created by Zoffix Znet # Please include the string: [perl #132352] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=132352 > Set operators are a lot less useful with mutable types, like SetHash, because even when on