Thanks, both your suggestion and JJ Merelo's work, but I think I like
yours for readability:
# # using binding, suggested by JJ Merelo <jjmer...@gmail.com>
# my @y := @x but LookInside;
# suggested by Elizabeth Mattijsen l...@dijkmat.nl
my @y does LookInside = @x;
I actually found the use of "but" in the objects docs to be
tremendously confusing at first: it looks like some sort of
conditional check, like "unless".
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:01 AM, Elizabeth Mattijsen <l...@dijkmat.nl> wrote:
>> On 12 Jun 2018, at 09:06, Joseph Brenner <doom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I thought this would work to make a copy of @x but with the role
>> "LookInside" attached to it:
>>
>> my @y = @x but LookInside;
>>
>> But that didn't add the role to @y. E.g.
>>
>> say @y.^WHAT
>>
>> Would just report (Array), not (Array+{LookInside}).
>
> What you’re doing here, is assigning the elements of an Array but Lookinside
> to a normal Array. The elements of the Array do not have any roles mixed in,
> so you wind up with a normal Array with normal elements in them. Perhaps you
> meant:
>
> my @y does LookInside = @x;
>
> Here you create an Array @y with the role LookInside mixed in, and *then*
> assign the values from @x.
>
>
>
> Also, what JJ Merelo said: StackOverflow is your friend :-)
>
>
>
> Liz
