Daniel Sockwell

Hmm, my (tentative) thought is that the current behavior is reflects the correct design. A different way to phase this issue would be "`next`, `last`, and `redo` should have lexical...

> Even the `.map({...})` form is a good demonstration because the code block just cannot be in the same lexical scope where the iteration logic is located. Well, it *can*:...

> I'm not arguing against this behavior for a Block but a Sub. IMO having this behavior differ between Blocks and Subs would be _highly_ confusing.

I've been giving this issue a fair bit of thought, of and on, and I'm not sure which design decision seems correct to me. I personally find the style used...

> Generally, declaration of a lexically scoped name that exists in an outer scope is not an error in Raku That's true. But I'd distinguish between declaring a lexically scoped...

> The thing is that the lexical "alias" to the attribute really does exist in the outer scope - that is, the scope of the class body! Fair. But the...

Wait, before we dive too deeply into proposed changes to syntax, I'd like to clarify what behavior the current syntax is supposed to allow. Earlier, @jnthn was asked how a...

@jubilatious1 I'm talking about slightly different syntax: with the token outside the `[…]`. ```raku say $/ if "The cat in the hat" ~~ m:g/ /; (｢The｣ ｢cat｣ ｢in｣ ｢the｣ ｢hat｣)...

> 'm not sure how useful it is to use `ident` an an example > How can `ident` be considered a character-class if no individual characters are ever identified by...

I think I'd read "the empty string always matches" to mean that it matches but not necessarily that it consumes a character. That seems to be the current behavior: `'42'...