# New Ticket Created by Elizabeth Mattijsen
# Please include the string: [perl #125487]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# <URL: https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=125487 >
[10:57:16] <lizmat> m: use nqp; my %h; %h<a> := nqp::null() #hmmmm
[10:57:16] <+camelia> rakudo-moar 3d645f: OUTPUT«Unexpected named parameter
'BIND' passed in block <unit> at /tmp/GYnIiEF0VO:1»
This looks strange to me, as we have the right candidate for this case:
multi sub postcircumfix:<{ }>( \SELF, \key ) is rw { # <— we fail here
SELF.AT-KEY(key);
}
multi sub postcircumfix:<{ }>(\SELF, \key, Mu :$BIND! is parcel) is rw { # <—
ok candidate??
SELF.BIND-KEY(key, $BIND);
}
Oddly enough, it looks like BIND-KEY *can* handle the case well:
$ 6 'use nqp; my %h; %h.BIND-KEY("a",nqp::null()); say %h.perl'
{:a(Mu)}<>
A similar issue exists with binding nqp::null() to array elements:
$ 6 'use nqp; my @a; @a[0] := nqp::null()'
Unexpected named parameter 'BIND' passed
in block <unit> at -e:1
$ 6 'use nqp; my @a; @a.BIND-POS(0,nqp::null()); say @a.perl'
[Mu]<>
I guess the dispatcher cannot see the difference between the absence of a value
and nqp::null()?
If this is a case of DIHWIDT, then so be it. I was just trying to see if we
could make the :delete adverb more sensical for arrays, by making it splice.
And introduce a new :null adverbs that would have the current semantics on
arrays, and similar semantics on hashes (aka, effectively turning the hash into
a SetHash with keys only).
Liz
