possible clarification of item(), list(), etc.

I think we need a slight wording improvement in S03. Currently S03:1772 says that the C contextualizer is equivalent to C<@()>. However, S05:2328 also says that C<@()> is a shorthand for C<@($/)>. Taken together, these would seem to imply that C is equivalent to C<@($/)>, which I suspect is not

and in S05

C and being zero width assertions , I think they must always be called with a question mark. This is not the case line 394 and 1537. Perljam suggested that a zero width assertion can be also a capturing one and that could explain the dropping of the question mark. I don't agree with that suggesti

[svn:perl6-synopsis] r14555 - doc/trunk/design/syn

Author: larry Date: Sat Jun 21 17:43:15 2008 New Revision: 14555 Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod Log: clarifications requested by cognominal++ Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod == --- doc/trunk/design/syn

Re: and in S05

On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 01:59:28PM -0700, cognominal wrote: : C and being zero width assertions , I think they must : always be called with : a question mark. This is not the case line 394 and 1537. : Perljam suggested that a zero width assertion can be also a capturing : one and that : could exp

[svn:perl6-synopsis] r14556 - doc/trunk/design/syn

Author: larry Date: Sat Jun 21 18:28:14 2008 New Revision: 14556 Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod Log: clarifications requested by pmichaud++ Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod == --- doc/trunk/design/syn/S