Luke wrote: > When junctions collapse, is that reflected back in the original > junction, as it should be (QM-wise)? > > $foo = 1 | 2 | 4 > print $foo; > # Foo is now just one of (1, 2, 4); i.e. not a junction > [...]
Just a sanity check, but is this kind of behaviour something we still want from junctions? If we're trying to get away from the whole "Quantum Superposition" name, why do we want to still have an implicit collapse on $foo when it's used in certain contexts? To collapse like this doesn't make sense unless you're still thinking in quantum terms. Perhaps the above should just print JUNCTION(0x1234) or something, like the other built-in types do. If you really want to collapse the superposition, use an explicit collapse($foo) or observe($foo) or pick($foo) or whatever you want to call it. Just a thought from someone vaguely in the Cozens Camp. -- Debbie Pickett http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~debbiep [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The city lights shine seaward, swirling in a trance, her eyes upon the water alone in her last dance." - _Oh Life (There Must be More)_, Alan Parsons
