lucasb oh, I was reminded of the thunky xx by your commit 11:48
14:33 masak left, masak joined 14:34 masak is now known as Guest98771 18:36 Guest98771 is now known as masak
masak I was hesitant over xx being thunky at first, but now I use it all the time, and it's very ergonomic 18:39
jnthn++ suggests that if someone is using an unquote in a `for` loop, they're probably intentional enough that they don't deserve a "Single Evaluation Rule" warning 18:40
lucasb don't you think thunky xx breaks the "similar things should look similar and different things should look different" principle? 18:43
do you see the similarity between "rand xx 3" and "rand x 3"? 18:44
and you want one to be thunky while the other isn't?
masak never thought about it that way 18:46
lucasb ah, I'm talking about P6. just making comments... I know design ships have sailed already. I'm not trying changing anything :-) 18:47
masak it is strange, now that you mention it
lucasb did you see my comment about it in #perl6-dev? 18:48
url? :)
lucasb 18:49
unfortunately, the :thunked adverb isn't a thing anymore 18:50
can't turn-off thunkiness with "rand xx 3 :!thunked"
masak also, there's a design rule says if you want a negative adverb/named like that, you're probably on the wrong track 19:00
lucasb: reading 19:01
lucasb: do know that && is thunky as well, do you? :)
lucasb oh nose. I did not haha 19:02
masak but I agree with you in principle that x should be thunky too 19:09
might be a case where we grudgingly follow Perl 6's (and Python's) lead, though 19:10
&& (and || and //) are "zero-or-one" thunky in their rhs. xx is "zero-or-more" thunky in its lhs. 19:11