Confusion in documentation of < >

[pmichaud]

Entering "< >" in the search box currently lists three entries:
Postcircumfix: .< > leads to routine/.<%20> (currently 404 not found)
Circumfix: < > leads to routine/<%20>
Quote: < > leads to syntax/<%20>

I don't think there should be a "circumfix" entry, as < > is not an operator, nor is there a circumfix:«< >» function/routine. As far as I can tell, it's purely a syntactic construct.

I suspect the same should be said for postcircumfix .< > -- as far as I know it's not a routine in its own right -- it's really syntactic sugar for .{< >} . It's not an operator in its own right (e.g., that could be overloaded).

[awwaiid]

Right now these are some nodes like "This is not a real operator, just syntactic sugar that is turned into the { } postcircumfix operator at compile-time." for postcircumfix.< > -- do you think that a similar note for circumfix: < > will suffice?

[AlexDaniel]

@awwaiid I think yes.

[AlexDaniel]

OK, so:

• Postcircumfix: .< > leads to here. It clearly says In most cases, a dot may be placed before a postfix or postcircumfix: (implies that it is not an operator on its own), but then it also says Technically this is not an operator, but syntax special-cased in the compiler.. So no problem here.
• Quote: < > leads to here. Again, I don't think that there's any problem with that.

However, there's now < > in Routine category: https://docs.perl6.org/routine/$LESS-THAN_SIGN%20$GREATER-THAN_SIGN and it says:

The quote-words construct. Breaks up the contents on whitespace, and returns a List of the words. If a word looks like a number literal or a Pair literal, it is converted to the appropriate number.

So at this point the most appropriate title for this ticket is: < > is listed as a circumfix operator, but it is not a real operator. Is that right?

[gfldex]

fixed with 22ddf6d b3dc4f2 2eb85f3