This: $junction>>.say;
works the way it is because the junction is passed as an argument to the hyper operator where the normal rules apply. Try it this way: say $junction>>.say; and it will result in: a b c any((True), (True), (True)) Best regards, Vadim Belman > On May 23, 2021, at 4:12 PM, Joseph Brenner <doom...@gmail.com> wrote: > > William Michels <w...@caa.columbia.edu> wrote: > >> my $exclude3 = ( rx/<|w>mothera$/, rx/<|w>camel$/ ); >> my @files3 = find( dir => $loc, type => 'file', exclude => $exclude3>>.any >> ); >> say "Exclude3: ", @files3; >> #Exclude3: ["/Users/me/test_folder/.DS_Store".IO >> "/Users/me/test_folder/godzilla".IO "/Users/me/test_folder/mothera".IO >> "/Users/me/test_folder/rhodan".IO] > > I wasn't really sure what bill was thinking there, because my > impression was that junctions, by design aren't supposed to be > treated as compound data structures, they're a *single* thing but > with multiple values that co-exist with each other in > "superposition". > > For example, you can't get a count of the number of elements in a junction: > > my $junction = any( 'a', 'b', 'c' ); > say $junction.elems; # any(1, 1, 1) > > But then, this actually works: > > $junction>>.say; > # a > # b > # c > > So going the other way, using a hyper operator to create a > junction isn't such a silly thing to look at... > > Though really then this idiom creates an array of multiple any > junctions with single values, which would behave just like the > individual values themselves: > > my $values = < A B C >; > my $junction2 = $values>>.any; > say $junction2; > # (any(A) any(B) any(C)) >
