=encoding utf8

=head1 TITLE

Synopsis 4: Blocks and Statements

=head1 AUTHOR

Larry Wall <larry@wall.org>

=head1 VERSION

  Maintainer: Larry Wall <larry@wall.org>
  Date: 19 Aug 2004
  Last Modified: 29 Jan 2005
  Number: 4
  Version: 5

This document summarizes Apocalypse 4, which covers the block and
statement syntax of Perl.

=head1 The Relationship of Blocks and Declarations

Every block is a closure.  (That is, in the abstract, they're all
anonymous subroutines that take a snapshot of their lexical scope.)
How any block is invoked and how its results are used is a matter of
context, but closures all work the same on the inside.

Blocks are delimited by curlies, or by the beginning and end of the
current compilation unit (either the current file or the current
C<eval> string).  Unlike in Perl 5, there are (by policy) no implicit
blocks around standard control structures.  (You could write a macro
that violates this, but resist the urge.)  Variables that mediate
between an outer statement and an inner block (such as loop variables)
should generally be declared as formal parameters to that block.  There
are three ways to declare formal parameters to a closure.

    $func = sub ($a, $b) { print if $a eq $b };  # standard sub declaration
    $func = -> $a, $b { print if $a eq $b };     # a "pointy" sub
    $func = { print if $^a eq $^b }              # placeholder arguments

A bare closure without placeholder arguments that uses C<$_>
(either explicitly or implicitly) is treated as though C<$_> were a
placeholder argument:

    $func = { print if $_ };
    $func("printme");

In any case, all formal parameters are the equivalent of C<my> variables
within the block.  See S6 for more on function parameters.

Except for such formal parameter declarations, all lexically scoped
declarations are visible from the point of declaration to the end of
the enclosing block.  Period.  Lexicals may not "leak" from a block to any
other external scope (at least, not without some explicit aliasing
action on the part of the block, such as exportation of a symbol
from a module).  The "point of declaration" is the moment the compiler
sees "C<my $foo>", not the end of the statement as in Perl 5, so

    my $x = $x;

will no longer see the value of the outer C<$x>; you'll need to say

    my $x = $OUTER::x;

instead.  (It's illegal to declare C<$x> twice in the same scope.)

As in Perl 5, "C<our $foo>" introduces a lexically scoped alias for
a variable in the current package.

There is a new C<state> declarator that introduces a lexically scoped
variable like C<my> does, but with a lifetime that persists for the
life of the closure, so that it keeps its value from the end of one
call to the beginning of the next.  Separate clones of the closure
get separate state variables.

Perl 5's "C<local>" function has been renamed to C<temp> to better
reflect what it does.  There is also a C<let> function that sets a
hypothetical value.  It works exactly like C<temp>, except that the
value will be restored only if the current block exits unsuccessfully.
(See Definition of Success below for more.)  C<temp> and C<let> temporize
or hypotheticalize the value or the variable depending on whether you
do assignment or binding.

=head1 Conditional statements

The C<if> and C<unless> statements work almost exactly as they do in
Perl 5, except that you may omit the parentheses on the conditional:

    if $foo == 123 {
	...
    }
    elsif $foo == 321 {
	...
    }
    else {
	...
    }

Conditional statement modifiers also work as in Perl 5.  So do the
implicit conditionals implied by short-circuit operators.  And there's
a new C<elsunless> in Perl 6--except that it's spelled C<elsif not>.
C<:-)>

=head1 Loop statements

The C<while> and C<until> statements work as in Perl 5, except that you
may leave out the parentheses around the conditional:

    while $bar < 100 {
	...
    }

Looping statement modifiers are the same as in Perl 5, except that
to avoid confusion applying one to a C<do> block is specifically
disallowed.  Instead of

    do {
	...
    } while $x;

you should write

    loop {
	...
    } while $x;

Loop modifiers C<next>, C<last>, and C<redo> work as in Perl 5.

There is no longer a C<continue> block.  Instead, use a C<NEXT> block
within the loop.  See below.

=head1 The general loop statement

The C<loop> statement is the C-style C<for> loop in disguise:

    loop $i = 0; $i < 10; $i++ {
	...
    }

As seen in the previous section, the 3-part loop spec may be entirely
omitted to write an infinite loop.  If you omit the 3-part loop spec
you may add a C<while> or C<until> statement modifier at the end
to make it a "repeat at least once" loop.  Unlike C<do> in Perl 5,
it's a real loop block, so you may use loop modifiers.

=head1 The C<for> statement

There is no C<foreach> statement any more. It's always spelled C<for>
in Perl 6, so it always takes a list as an argument:

    for @foo { print }

As mentioned earlier, the loop variable is named by passing a parameter
to the closure:

    for @foo -> $item { print $item }

Multiple parameters may be passed, in which case the list is traversed
more than one element at a time:

    for %hash.kv -> $key, $value { print "$key => $value\n" }

To process two arrays in parallel, use either the C<zip> function:

    for zip(@a;@b) -> $a, $b { print "[$a, $b]\n" }

or the "zipper" operator to interleave them:

    for @a ¥ @b ¥ @c -> $a, $b, $c { print "[$a, $b, $c]\n" }

That's equivalent to

    for zip(@a;@b;@c) -> $a, $b, $c { print "[$a, $b, $c]\n" }

The list is evaluated lazily by default, so instead of using a C<while>
to read a file a line at a time:

    while my $line = <$*IN> {...}

you should use a C<for> instead:

    for =$*IN -> $line {...}

This has the added benefit of limiting the scope of the C<$line>
parameter to the block it's bound to.  (The C<while>'s declaration of
C<$line> continues to be visible past the end of the block.  Remember,
no implicit block scopes.)  It is possible to write

    while =$*IN -> $line {...}

But it won't do what you expect, because unary C<=> does a slurp in scalar
context, so C<$line> will contain the entire file.

Note also that Perl 5's special rule causing

    while (<>) {...}

to automatically assign to C<$_> is not carried over to Perl 6.  That's
should now be written:

    for =<> {...}

which is short for

    for =$*ARGS {...}

Parameters are by default constant within the block.  You can
declare a parameter read/write by including the "C<is rw>" trait.
If you rely on C<$_> as the implicit parameter to a block, then
then C<$_> is considered read/write by default.  That is,
the construct:

    for @foo {...}

is actually short for:

    for @foo -> $_ is rw {...}

so you can modify the current list element in that case.  However,
any time you specify the arguments, they default to read only.

When used as a statement modifers, C<for> and C<given> use a private
instance of C<$_> for the left side of the statement.  The outer C<$_>
can be referred to as C<$OUTER::_>.  (And yes, this implies that the
compiler may have to retroactively change the binding of <$_> on the
left side.  But it's what people expect of a pronoun like "it".)

=head1 The do-once loop

In Perl 5, a bare block is deemed to be a do-once loop.  In Perl 6,
the bare block is not a do-once.  Instead C<do {...}> is the do-once
loop (which is another reason you can't put a C<while> or C<until>
modifier on it).

=head1 Switch statements

A switch statement is a means of topicalizing, so the switch keyword
is the English topicalizer, C<given>.  The keyword for individual
cases is C<when>:

    given EXPR {
        when EXPR { ... }
        when EXPR { ... }
        default { ... }
    }

The current topic is always aliased to the special variable C<$_>.
The C<given> block is just one way to set the current topic, but a
switch statement can be any block that sets C<$_>, including a C<for>
loop (in which the first loop parameter is the topic) or the body
of a method (in which the object itself is the topic).  So switching
behavior is actually caused by the C<when> statements in the block,
not by the nature of the block itself.  A C<when> statement implicitly
does a "smart match" between the current topic (C<$_>) and the argument
of the C<when>.  If the smart match succeeds, the associated closure
is executed, and the surrounding block is automatically broken out
of.  If the smart match fails, control passes to the next statement
normally, which may or may not be a C<when> statement.  Since C<when>
statements are presumed to be executed in order like normal statements,
it's not required that all the statements in a switch block be C<when>
statements (though it helps the optimizer to have a sequence of
contiguous C<when> statements, because then it can arrange to jump
directly to the first appropriate test that might possibly match.)

The default case:

    default {...}

is exactly equivalent to

    when true {...}

Because C<when> statements are executed in order, the default must
come last.  You don't have to use an explicit default--you can just
fall off the last C<when> into ordinary code.  But use of a C<default>
block is good documentation.

If you use a C<for> loop with a named parameter, the parameter is
also aliased to C<$_> so that it can function as the topic of any
C<when> statements within the loop.  If you use a C<for> statement
with multiple parameters, only the first parameter is aliased to C<$_>
as the topic.

You can explicitly break out of a C<when> block (and its surrounding
switch) early using the C<break> verb.  You can explicitly break out
of a C<when> block and go to the next statement by using C<continue>.
(Note that, unlike with C's idea of falling through, subsequent C<when>
conditions are evaluated.  To jump into the next C<when> block you
must use a C<goto>.)

If you have a switch that is the main block of a C<for> loop, and
you break out of the switch either implicitly or explicitly, it merely
goes to the next iteration of the loop.  You must use C<last> to break
out of the entire loop early.  Of course, an explicit C<next> would
be clearer than a C<break> in that case.

=head1 Exception handlers

Unlike many other languages, Perl 6 specifies exception handlers by
placing a C<CATCH> block I<within> that block that is having its exceptions
handled.

The Perl 6 equivalent to Perl 5's C<eval {...}> is C<try {...}>.
(Perl 6's C<eval> function only evaluates strings, not blocks.)
A C<try> block by default has a C<CATCH> block that handles all
exceptions by ignoring them.  If you define a C<CATCH> block within
the C<try>, it replaces the default C<CATCH>.  It also makes the C<try>
keyword redundant, because any block can function as a C<try> block
if you put a C<CATCH> block within it.

An exception handler is just a switch statement on an implicit topic
supplied within the C<CATCH> block.  That implicit topic is the current
exception object, also known as C<$!>.  Inside the C<CATCH> block, it's
also bound to C<$_>, since it's the topic.  Because of smart matching,
ordinary C<when> statements are sufficiently powerful to pattern
match the current exception against classes or patterns or numbers
without any special syntax for exception handlers.  If none of the
cases in the C<CATCH> handles the exception, the exception is rethrown.
To ignore all unhandled exceptions, use an empty C<default> case.
(In other words, there is an implicit C<die $!> just inside the end
of the C<CATCH> block.  Handled exceptions break out past this implicit
rethrow.)

=head1 Control Exceptions

All abnormal control flow is, in the general case, handled by the
exception mechanism (which is likely to be optimized away in specific
cases.)  Here "abnormal" means any transfer of control outward that
is not just falling off the end of a block.  A C<return>,
for example, is considered a form of abnormal control flow, since it
can jump out of multiple levels of closure to the end of the scope
of the current subroutine definition.  Loop commands like C<next>
are abnormal, but looping because you hit the end of the block is not.
The implicit break of a C<when> block is abnormal.

A C<CATCH> block handles only "bad" exceptions, and lets control
exceptions pass unhindered.  Control exceptions may be caught with a
C<CONTROL> block.  Generally you don't need to worry about this unless
you're defining a control construct.  You may have one C<CATCH> block
and one C<CONTROL> block, since some user-defined constructs may wish to
supply an implicit C<CONTROL> block to your closure, but let you define
your own C<CATCH> block.

A C<return> always exits from the lexically surrounding sub
or method definition (that is, from a function officially declared
with the C<sub>, C<method>, or C<submethod> keywords).  Pointy subs
and bare closures are transparent to C<return>.  If you pass a reference
to a closure outside of its official "sub" scope, it is illegal to
return from it.

To return a value from a pointy sub or bare closure, you either
just mention the value last that you want to return, or you can
use C<leave>.  A C<leave> by default exits from the innermost block.
But you may change the behavior of C<leave> with selector adverbs:

    leave :from(Loop) :label<LINE> <== 1,2,3;

The innermost block matching the selection criteria will be exited.
The return value, if any, must be passed as a list.  To return pairs
as part of the value, you can use a pipe:

    leave <== :foo:bar:baz(1) if $leaving;

or going the other way::

    $leaving and :foo:bar:baz(1) ==> leave;

In theory, any user-defined control construct can catch any control
exception it likes.  However, there have to be some culturally enforced
standards on which constructs capture which exceptions.  Much like
C<return> may only return from an "official" subroutine or method,
a loop exit like C<next> should be caught by the construct the user
expects it to be caught by.  In particular, if the user labels a loop
with a specific label, and calls a loop control from within the lexical
scope of that loop, and if that call mentions the outer loop's label,
then that outer loop is the one that must be controlled. (This search
of lexical scopes is limited to the current "official" subroutine.)
If there is no such lexically scoped outer loop in current subroutine.
then a fallback search is made outward through the dynamic scopes in
the same way Perl 5 does.  (The difference between Perl 5 and Perl 6
in this respect arises only because Perl 5 didn't have user-defined
control structures, hence the sub's lexical scope was I<always>
the innermost dynamic scope, so the preference to the lexical scope
in the current sub was implicit.  For Perl 6 we have to make this
preference explicit.)

=head1 Exceptions

As in Perl 5, many built-in functions simply return undef when you ask for
a value out of range.  Unlike in Perl 5, these may be "interesting" values
of undef that contain information about the error.  If you try to use
an undefined value, that information can then be conveyed to the user.
In essence, undef can be an unthrown exception object that just happens
to return 0 when you ask it whether it's defined or it's true.  Since $!
contains the current error code, saying C<die $!> will turn an unthrown
exception into a thrown exception.  (A bare C<die> does the same.)

You can cause built-ins to automatically throw exceptions on failure using

    use fatal;

The C<fail> function responds to the caller's "use fatal" state.  It
either returns an unthrown exception, or throws the exception.

If an exception is raised while C<$!> already contains an exception
that is active and "unclean", no information is discarded.  The old
exception is pushed onto the exception stack within the new exception,
which is then bound to C<$!> and, hopefully, propagated.  The default
printout for the new exception should include the old exception
information so that the user can trace back to the original error.
(Likewise, rethrown exceptions add information about how the exception
is propagated.)

Exception objects are born "unclean".  The C<$!> object keeps track of
whether it's currently "clean" or "unclean".  The exception in C<$!> still
exists after it has been caught, but catching it marks it as clean
if any of the cases in the switch matched.  Clean exceptions don't
require their information to be preserved if another exception occurs.

=head1 Closure traits

A C<CATCH> block is just a trait of the closure containing it.  Other
blocks can be installed as traits as well.  These other blocks are
called at various times, and some of them respond to various control
exceptions and exit values:

      BEGIN {...}*	at compile time, ASAP
      CHECK {...}*	at compile time, ALAP
       INIT {...}*	at run time, ASAP
        END {...}	at run time, ALAP
      FIRST {...}*	at first block entry time
      ENTER {...}*	at every block entry time 
      LEAVE {...}	at every block exit time 
       KEEP {...}	at every successful block exit
       UNDO {...}	at every unsuccessful block exit
       NEXT {...}	at loop continuation time
       LAST {...}	at loop termination time
        PRE {...}	assert precondition at every block entry
       POST {...}	assert postcondition at every block exit
      CATCH {...}	catch exceptions
    CONTROL {...}	catch control exceptions

Those marked with a C<*> can also be used within an expression:

    my $compiletime = BEGIN { localtime };
    our $temphandle = FIRST { maketemp() };

Some of these also have corresponding traits that can be set on variables.
These have the advantage of passing the variable in question into
the closure as its topic:

    my $r will first { .set_random_seed() };
    our $h will enter { .rememberit() } will undo { .forgetit() };

Apart from C<CATCH> and C<CONTROL>, which can only occur once, most of
these can occur multiple times within the block.  So they aren't really
traits, exactly--they actually add themselves onto a list stored in the
actual trait.  So if you examine the C<ENTER> trait of a block, you'll
find that it's really a list of closures rather than a single closure.

The semantics of C<INIT> and C<FIRST> are not equivalent to each
other in the case of cloned closures.  An C<INIT> only runs once for
all copies of a cloned closure.  A C<FIRST> runs separately for each
clone, so separate clones can keep separate state variables:

    our $i = 0;
    ...
    $func = { state $x will first{$i++}; dostuff($i) };

But C<state> automatically applies "first" semantics to any initializer,
so this also works:

    $func = { state $x = $i++; dostuff($i) }

Each subsequent clone gets an initial state that is one higher than the
previous, and each clone maintains its own state of C<$x>, because that's
what C<state> variables do.

All of these trait blocks can see any previously declared lexical
variables, even if those variables have not been elaborated yet when
the closure is invoked.  (In which case the variables evaluate to an
undefined value.)

Note: Apocalypse 4 confused the notions of C<PRE>/C<POST> with C<ENTER>/C<LEAVE>.
These are now separate notions.  C<ENTER> and C<LEAVE> are used only for
their side effects.  C<PRE> and C<POST> must return boolean values that are
evaluated according to the usual Design by Contract rules.  (Plus,
if you use C<ENTER>/C<LEAVE> in a class block, they only execute when the
class block is executed, but C<PRE>/C<POST> in a class block are evaluated
around every method in the class.)

C<LEAVE> blocks are evaluated after C<CATCH> and C<CONTROL> blocks, including
the C<LEAVE> variants, C<KEEP> and C<UNDO>.  C<POST> blocks are evaluated after
everything else, to guarantee that even C<LEAVE> blocks can't violate DBC.
Likewise C<PRE> blocks fire off before any C<ENTER> or C<FIRST> (though not
before C<BEGIN>, C<CHECK>, or C<INIT>, since those are done at compile or
process initialization time).

=head1 Statement parsing

In this statement:

    given EXPR {
        when EXPR { ... }
        when EXPR { ... }
        ...
    }

parentheses aren't necessary around C<EXPR> because the whitespace
between C<EXPR> and the block forces the block to be considered a
block rather than a subscript.  This works for all control structures,
not just the new ones in Perl 6.  A bare block where an operator
is expected is always considered a statement block if there's space
before it:

    if $foo { ... }
    elsif $bar { ... }
    else { ... }
    while $more { ... }
    for 1..10 { ... }

(You can still parenthesize the expression argument for old times' sake,
as long as there's a space between the closing paren and the opening
brace.)

On the other hand, anywhere a term is expected, a block is taken to
be a closure definition (an anonymous subroutine).  If the closure
appears to delimit nothing but a comma-separated list starting with
a pair (counting a single pair as a list of one element), the closure
will be immediately executed as a hash composer.

    $hashref = { "a" => 1 };
    $hashref = { "a" => 1, $b, $c, %stuff, @nonsense };

    $coderef = { "a", 1 };
    $coderef = { "a" => 1, $b, $c ==> print };

If you wish to be less ambiguous, the C<hash> list operator will
explicitly evaluate a list and compose a hash of the returned value,
while C<sub> introduces an anonymous subroutine:

    $coderef = sub { "a" => 1 };
    $hashref = hash("a" => 1);
    $hashref = hash("a", 1);

If a closure is the right argument of the dot operator, the closure
is interpreted as a hash subscript, even if there is space before the dot.

    $ref = {$x};	# closure because term expected
    if $term{$x}	# subscript because operator expected
    if $term {$x}	# expression followed by statement block
    if $term .{$x}	# valid subscript (term expected after dot)

Similar rules apply to array subscripts:

    $ref = [$x];	# array composer because term expected
    if $term[$x]	# subscript because operator expected
    if $term [$x]	# syntax error (two terms in a row)
    if $term .[$x]	# valid subscript (term expected after dot)

And to the parentheses delimiting function arguments:

    $ref = ($x);	# grouping parens because term expected
    if $term($x)	# function call because operator expected
    if $term ($x)	# syntax error (two terms in a row)
    if $term .($x)	# valid function call (term expected after dot)

A trailing curly on a line by itself (not counting whitespace or comments)
always reverts to the precedence of semicolon whether or not you put
a semicolon after it.  (In the absence of an explicit semicolon,
the current statement may continue on a subsequent line, but only
with valid statement continuators such as C<else>.  A modifier on a
C<loop> statement must continue on the same line, however.)

Final blocks on statement-level constructs always imply semicolon
precedence afterwards regardless of the position of the closing curly.
Statement-level constructs are distinguished in the grammar by being
declared in the statement syntactic group:

    macro statement_control:<if> ($expr, &ifblock) {...}
    macro statement_control:<while> ($expr, &whileblock) {...}
    macro statement_control:<BEGIN> (&beginblock) {...}

It's possible the full name of the C<if> operator is now:

    statement_control:<if elsif else>

Statement-level constructs may start only where the parser is expecting
the start of a statement.  To embed a statement in an expression you
must use something like C<do {...}> or C<try {...}>.

    $x =  do { given $foo { when 1 {2} when 3 {4} } + $bar;
    $x = try { given $foo { when 1 {2} when 3 {4} } + $bar;

Just because there's a C<< statement_control:<BEGIN> >> does not preclude us from
also defining a C<< prefix:<BEGIN> >> that I<can> be used within an expression:

    macro prefix:<BEGIN> (&beginblock) { beginblock().repr }

Then you can say things like:

    $recompile_by = BEGIN { time } + $expiration_time;

But C<< statement_control:<BEGIN> >> hides C<< prefix:<BEGIN> >> at the start of a statement.
You could also conceivably define a C<< prefix:<if> >>, but then you would
get a syntax error when you say:

    print if $foo

since C<< prefix:<if>> > would hide C<< statement_modifier:<if> >>.

=head1 Smart matching

Here is the current table of smart matches (which probably belongs in
S3).  The list is intended to reflect forms that can be recognized at
compile time.  If none of these forms is recognized at compile time, it
falls through to a multiple dispatch to C<< infix:<~~>() >>, which presumably
reflects similar semantics, but can finesse things that aren't exact
type matches.  Note that all types are scalarized here.  Both C<~~>
and C<given>/C<when> provide scalar contexts to their arguments.
(You can always hyperize C<~~> explicitly, though.)  So both C<$_>
and C<$x> here are potentially references to container objects.
And since lists promote to arrays in scalar context, there need be no
separate entries for lists.

    $_      $x        Type of Match Implied    Matching Code
    ======  =====     =====================    =============
    Any     Code<$>   scalar sub truth         match if $x($_)
    Hash    Hash      hash keys identical      match if $_.keys.sort »eq« $x.keys.sort
    Hash    any(Hash) hash key intersection    match if $_{any(Hash.keys)}
    Hash    Array     hash value slice truth   match if $_{any(@$x)}
    Hash    any(list) hash key slice existence match if exists $_{any(list)}
    Hash    all(list) hash key slice existence match if exists $_{all(list)}
    Hash    Rule      hash key grep            match if any($_.keys) ~~ /$x/
    Hash    Any       hash entry existence     match if exists $_{$x}
    Hash    .{Any}    hash element truth*      match if $_{Any}
    Hash    .<string> hash element truth*      match if $_<string>
    Array   Array     arrays are identical     match if $_ »~~« $x
    Array   any(list) list intersection        match if any(@$_) ~~ any(list)
    Array   Rule      array grep               match if any(@$_) ~~ /$x/
    Array   Num       array contains number    match if any($_) == $x
    Array   Str       array contains string    match if any($_) eq $x
    Array   .[number] array element truth*     match if $_[number]
    Num     NumRange  in numeric range         match if $min <= $_ <= $max
    Str     StrRange  in string range          match if $min le $_ le $max
    Any     Code<>    simple closure truth*    match if $x() (ignoring $_)
    Any     Class     class membership         match if $_.does($x)
    Any     Role      role playing             match if $_.does($x)
    Any     Num       numeric equality         match if $_ == $x
    Any     Str       string equality          match if $_ eq $x
    Any     .method   method truth*            match if $_.method
    Any     Rule      pattern match            match if $_ ~~ /$x/
    Any     subst     substitution match*      match if $_ ~~ subst
    Any     boolean   simple expression truth* match if true given $_
    Any     undef     undefined                match unless defined $_
    Any     Any       run-time dispatch        match if infix:<~~>($_, $x)

Matches marked with * are non-reversible, typically because C<~~> takes
its left side as the topic for the right side, and sets the topic to a
private instance of C<$_> for its right side, so C<$_> means something
different on either side.  Such non-reversible constructs can be made
reversible by putting the leading term into a closure to defer the
binding of C<$_>.  For example:

    $x ~~ .does(Storeable)	# okay
    .does(Storeable) ~~ $x	# not okay--gets wrong $_ on left
    { .does(Storeable) } ~~ $x	# okay--closure binds its $_ to $x

Exactly the same consideration applies to C<given> and C<when>:

    given $x { when .does(Storeable) {...} }      # okay
    given .does(Storeable) { when $x {...} }      # not okay
    given { .does(Storeable) } { when $x {...} }  # okay

Boolean expressions are those known to return a boolean value, such
as comparisons, or the unary C<?> operator.  They may reference C<$_>
explicitly or implicitly.  If they don't reference C<$_> at all, that's
okay too--in that case you're just using the switch structure as a more
readable alternative to a string of elsifs.

The primary use of the C<~~> operator is to return a boolean value in
a boolean context.  However, for certain operands such as regular
expressions, use of the operator within scalar or list context transfers
the context to that operand, so that, for instance, a regular expression
can return a list of matched substrings, as in Perl 5.  The complete
list of such operands is TBD.

It has not yet been determined if run-time dispatch of C<~~> will
attempt to emulate the compile-time precedence table before reverting
to MMD, or just go directly to MMD.  There are good arguments for
both sides, and we can decide when we see more examples of how
it'll work out.

=head1 Definition of Success

Hypothetical variables are somewhat transactional--they keep their
new values only on successful exit of the current block, and otherwise
are rolled back to their original value.

It is, of course, a failure to leave the block by propagating an error
exception, though returning a defined value after catching an exception
is okay.

In the absence of exception propagation, a successful exit is one that
returns a defined value in scalar context, or any number of values
in list context as long as the length is defined.  (A length of +Inf
is considered a defined length.  A length of 0 is also a defined length,
which means it's a "successful" return even though the list would evaluate
to false in a boolean context.)  A list can have a defined length
even if it contains undefined scalar values.  A list is of undefined
length only if it contains an undefined generator, which, happily, is
what is returned by the C<undef> function when used in list context.
So any Perl 6 function can say

    return undef;

and not care about whether the function is being called in scalar or list
context.  To return an explicit scalar undef, you can always say

    return scalar(undef);

Then in list context, you're returning a list of length 1, which is
defined (much like in Perl 5).  But generally you should be using
C<fail> in such a case to return an exception object.  Exception
objects also behave like undefined generators in list context.
In any case, returning an unthrown exception is considered failure
from the standpoint of C<let>.  Backtracking over a closure in a rule
is also considered failure of the closure, which is how hypothetical
variables are managed by rules.  (And on the flip side, use of C<fail>
within a rule closure initiates backtracking of the rule.)

=head1 When is a closure not a closure

Everything is conceptually a closure in Perl 6, but the optimizer
is free to turn unreferenced closures into mere blocks of code.
It is also free to turn referenced closures into mere anonymous
subroutines if the block does not refer to any external lexicals that
could themselves be cloned.  In particular, named subroutines in any
scope do not consider themselves closures unless you take a reference
to them.  So

    sub foo {
	my $x = 1;
	my sub bar { print $x }		# not cloned yet
	my &baz = { bar(); print $x };	# cloned immediately
	my $barref = &bar;		# now bar is cloned
	return &baz;
    }

When we say "clone", we mean the way the system takes a snapshot of the
routine's lexical scope and binds it to the current instance of the routine
so that if you ever use the current reference to the routine, it gets
the current snapshot of its world, lexically speaking.

Some closures produce references at compile time that cannot be
cloned, because they're not attached to any runtime code that can
actively clone them.  BEGIN, CHECK, INIT, and END blocks probably
fall into this category.  Therefore you can't reliably refer to
run-time variables from them even if they appear to be in scope.
(The compile-time closure may, in fact, see a some kind of permanent
copy of the variable for some storage classes, but the variable is
likely to be undefined when the closure is run in any case.)  It's
only safe to refer to package variables and file-scoped lexicals from
such a routine.

On the other hand, it is required that CATCH and LEAVE blocks be able
to see transient variables in their current lexical scope, so their
cloning status depends at least on the cloning status of the block
they're in.
