Carl Mäsak

By the way, implementation has now started, under a feature flag. The ability to introduce new class names into user code is currently slowly causing an upheaval in some assumptions...

> In some sense, one could think of the `class` syntax being "compiled down to" or otherwise standing in for the object/closure syntax. This notion is not obviously compatible with...

> -1 to changing `my`'s behavior in class as compared to Perl 6, I'd argue either it's lexical or it's not. Belatedly I'm coming around to this. It's a lot...

(...where "soonish" apparently means "more than one month later"...) class Runtime { property out; private property pads = []; private property eval_of_type = { # properties omitted for this example...

The above proposal also completely avoids changing the behavior of `my`, which ought to make @vendethiel happy.

I came up with a variant that's virtually keyword-free: class Runtime { out; !pads = []; !eval_of_type = { # properties omitted for this example }; !run_of_type = { #...

As part of writing such a test, we also need to decide what the actual semantics of nested unquoting should be. I think the two main candidates are: * Interpolate...

As time passes, I find myself leaning more and more strongly towards "they should both exist, and be separate". I have two new pieces of evidence, for some very loose...

> I think it's impossible to have a discussion about this without talking about phases and binding times. > What can you see, when? Do macros and classes "appear" into...

> (Very conjectural, but: in some cases it might be possible to data-flow back through the relevant function/method calls, _at compile time_, and install the appropriate "spies" in that code...