Re: List.uniq

>> Moritz Lenz wrote: >> >>> There are some tests for List.uniq in the test suite, and pugs >>> implements it, but it's not in S29. >>> Damian seems to have though we should have it. >>> So should we have it? >> >> I still think we sho

Re: List.uniq

Damian Conway wrote: > Moritz Lenz wrote: > >> There are some tests for List.uniq in the test suite, and pugs >> implements it, but it's not in S29. >> Damian seems to have though we should have it. >> So should we have it? > > I still think we sho

Re: List.uniq

Moritz Lenz wrote: There are some tests for List.uniq in the test suite, and pugs implements it, but it's not in S29. Damian seems to have though we should have it. So should we have it? I still think we should. If only because I've seen it re-(mis)-implemented so many times.

List.uniq

There are some tests for List.uniq in the test suite, and pugs implements it, but it's not in S29. Damian seems to have though we should have it: http://groups.google.com/group/perl.perl6.language/msg/4c8c9bd73c862bed So should we have it? If not, I'll replace the tests with eval_dies

[perl #55484] [PATCH] Improved List.uniq

BTW, List.uniq looks like totally unspecced. -- Bacek. diff --git a/languages/perl6/src/classes/List.pir b/languages/perl6/src/classes/List.pir index b9b5107..b4056ac 100644 --- a/languages/perl6/src/classes/List.pir +++ b/languages/perl6/src/classes/List.pir @@ -624,7 +624,9 @@ # TODO Rewrite it. I