| 2 Jun 2026 | |||
| [Coke] | anyone know who has privs on dev.azure.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/ ? | 01:18 | |
| I can see the runs, but if I try to rerun failed ones, I get TF400813: The user 'edb5f846-d424-4534-aab5-b9a3282ae013' is not authorized to access this resource. | |||
| ah. looks like I'm in Raku/nqp on azure.com, but not MoarVM/MoarVM - can someone with rights add me, please? | 01:24 | ||
| Geth | rakudo/main: 6 commits pushed by (Nick Logan)++
|
01:50 | |
| rakudo: ugexe++ created pull request #6217: RakuAST: fix sub signature parameter and parametric role compile crashes |
02:58 | ||
| rakudo: ugexe++ created pull request #6218: RakuAST: emit empty concat for modifier-only alternation branch |
04:04 | ||
| lizmat | ugexe++ | 08:29 | |
| sometimes I wonder whether it would make sense to make a $*RESOLVER and $*CONTEXT dynvar instead of keeping passing them around | 08:30 | ||
| Geth | roast: ba1e02a602 | (Elizabeth Mattijsen)++ | S06-currying/misc.t Add tests for github.com/rakudo/rakudo/issues/6212 |
08:43 | |
| roast: 867b9869f7 | (Elizabeth Mattijsen)++ | 4 files Untodo now passing .assuming tests Since the RakuAST based .assuming implementation made it to the 2026.05 release, it's time to make these tests canonical |
09:09 | ||
| ab5tract | From a grammar standpoint, would it be possible to support 'do' in postfix statements? | 12:08 | |
| m: with True do say "I'd like this" | 12:09 | ||
| camelia | ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling <tmp> Missing block at <tmp>:1 ------> with True<HERE> do say "I'd like this" expecting any of: block or pointy block infix infix stopper |
||
| ab5tract | oops, not postfix statements at all. This is in place of the regular block form, as opposed to the postfix statements. | 12:11 | |
| m: with $maybe do .definitely | 12:12 | ||
| camelia | ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling <tmp> Variable '$maybe' is not declared. Perhaps you forgot a 'sub' if this was intended to be part of a signature? at <tmp>:1 ------> with <HERE>$maybe do .definitely |
||
| ab5tract | crucially, we'd want the auto-topicalization behavior that makes postfix so useful. | 12:14 | |
| For my taste, postfix works great for if/unless. but I really struggle to enjoy it with 'for' and 'with' | 12:15 | ||
| `for @foo do .frob` feels like it might be a nice compromise, assuming that it is even possible | 12:16 | ||
| lizmat | .definitely with $maybe | 12:28 | |
| what's wrong with that ? | |||
| not sure what you want to achieve :-) | 12:29 | ||
| ab5tract | I don't like that syntax | 12:49 | |
| .definitely unless maybe # makes sense as a sequence of words | |||
| .definitely for maybe # does not | 12:50 | ||
| This is a personal thing. I was just trying to gauge whether it is even possible. | 12:51 | ||
| lizmat | m: sub do($a) { $a }; do .say with 42 | 12:52 | |
| camelia | 42 | ||
| ab5tract | lizmat: that's not the same thing though | ||
| that's using postfix with still | 12:53 | ||
| I am simply suggesting that do be allowed to stand in for a block and have auto-topicalization while doing so | |||
| if $wrong do make-it-right | 12:54 | ||
| if $wrong do .&make-it-right | |||
| And suggesting might even be too strong a word. My intent is mostly to see if there's any interest beyond myself and to gauge difficulty, if possible. | 12:56 | ||
| ShimmerFairy | I don't see why `with 42 { .say }` wouldn't suffice. I get that it's aesthetically different from having an english word, but the braces use the same number of meaningful characters, and works with the language as-is (whereas 'do' in this manner would be a new syntax, just for this feature). | 13:08 | |
| librasteve_ | i kinda like it from a user pov (can’t speak to the difficulty), I like `.say for ^3` and `.say with $x` but would be happy to see `for ^3 do .say` timtowdi wise | 13:17 | |
| ab5tract | Looking at it more, it does look like 'do' would be adding a sepcial semantics for this case, which makes me like the idea a lot less | 14:41 | |
| lizmat | it would also make error reporting on improper use of "do" a lot more difficult :-( | 14:45 | |
| ab5tract | okay, this is more for the fun of thinking about it than anything else, but maybe pointy arrow could have the desired semantics when used without a signature *or* a block. It could take a single expression and have -> ($_) as the signature | 15:16 | |
| for @all -> .say | |||
| lizmat | I don't see the advantage above: .say for @all | 15:46 | |
| ab5tract | Again, I really don't like that syntax and rarely use it. Something about the bare method call and the out of order language use | 16:01 | |
| for @all { .say } is fine. I am also trying to discuss the capabilities of the grammar here, is this feasible, let's have a discussion, etc\ | 16:02 | ||
| *the bare method call starting off the statement list | 16:05 | ||