Erm. Isn't Nil a silent Failure? Insisting that it be propagated and retained in all circumstances basically asserts that it must be a distinct concrete value, and specifically *not* any form of Failure. Could someone clarify this?
(At present my understanding is that it is a silent Failure and most if not all of today's Nil tickets are at best missing the point.) On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Zefram <perl6-bugs-follo...@perl.org> wrote: > # New Ticket Created by Zefram > # Please include the string: [perl #130970] > # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. > # <URL: https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=130970 > > > > > Set.new(Nil).perl > set(Any) > > set(Nil).perl > set(Any) > > set(Nil).WHICH > Set|Any|U16962232 > > Attempting to put Nil into a Set instead puts Any into one. Happens with > both Set.new() and set() constructors. The .WHICH result shows that > it really is the set construction that mangled the value, not .perl. > There's no reason for Nil not to be a distinguishable value in a set. > > -zefram > -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allber...@gmail.com ballb...@sinenomine.net unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net
