From 8d11b5f8a3896a16b5cdfa006d0fa9b5db427461 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: JJ Merelo Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 17:38:31 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Changes phrasing for description of binding It limits itself to the problem pointed out in the OP, so this should close #1378. The terminology suggested by @smls is great, but it might be better to open some issues to pages where it's not well expressed. --- doc/Language/list.pod6 | 8 +++++--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/Language/list.pod6 b/doc/Language/list.pod6 index cbcb33730..95f113112 100644 --- a/doc/Language/list.pod6 +++ b/doc/Language/list.pod6 @@ -85,17 +85,19 @@ also contain these objects, but C<@>-sigiled variables always do, and are expected to act the part. By default, when you assign a C to an C<@>-sigiled variable, you create -an C. Those are described below. If, instead you want to put an actual -C into an C<@>-sigiled variable, you can use binding with C<:=> instead. +an C. Those are described below. If instead you want to refer directly to a +C object using an C<@>-sigiled variable, you can use binding with C<:=> instead. my @a := 1, 2, 3; One of the ways C<@>-sigiled variables act like lists is by always supporting L. Anything bound to a C<@>-sigiled -value must support the L role which guarantees this: +value must support the L role which guarantees that this is going to fail: my @a := 1; # Type check failed in binding; expected Positional but got Int + + =head1 Reset a List Container To remove all elements from a Positional container assign