Split 5to6 section into 3 paragraphs

[0rir]

Split the Language/5to6-perlop/The_arrow_operator section into 3 paragraphs.

Changed the fat arrow redirect to the more local 5to6-perlop#Comma_operator. And put it first.

Reduced the text of the central point into the second paragraph. Making a change so the first sentence need not be corrected by the second.

The third pargraph briefly states the ->'s Raku purpose with links.

My "dereferencing is rare in Raku" seems justified in my slight experience and by JJ's tone. If not so, advise.

[lizmat]

Perhaps add: and that $arrayref[7] is also valid syntax for positional access (losing the dot).

[0rir]

I do not understand this well. A few times, IIRC, I have needed a dot to get an array index to work. I am fairly sure that it was in map 's Callable parameter. So there is something like indirection that comes up rarely. JJ seems to be making that distinction.

If that distinction is real, your addition would be better placed with 5to6's guidance about Arrays.

I'll try checking the dot-reference-op's sources, with modest hope of success.

[lizmat]

.[42] is short for $_[42], perhaps that's where you got that notion from? The dot is needed, as [42] is syntax for an array with a single element: 42.

[0rir]

@lizmat, I don't think so; I loved the vanishing topic at first non-sight. A named var or a Whatever, or finding a dot instead of a trait's double parens.

Maybe @JJ can say why he mentioned dereferencing.

[JJ]

It would help if I had a bit of context. Are you talking about an issue, about what's actually written there which I wrote (found by blame)? I'll try to go for both, but will need some time figuring out, I'm afraid.

[JJ]

OK, I have a bit of context here now. My 2¢ (taking into account that the only thing I did with this piece of documentation is changing Perl(non-breaking-whitespace)6 to raku)

1. I don't think people are coming to Raku from the Perl community, so my first impulse for these pages would be just to consider them technical debt and eliminate them.
2. Fixing something that has not been broken (i. e. does not have an issue) is always a difficult proposition, if not for anything else because it's difficult to evaluate what's right or wrong. That applies also to documentation. And there's effectively an issue with these pages: Tone of 5-6 articles #4467 which mainly talks about the "tone". That might not be in scope, but as long as you're changing some piece of code affected by that issue, you should try and help with that.
3. Talking about dereferencing should maybe receive some context, such as a link to this FAQ to the tune of "talking about taking references [and de-referencing]) doesn't make much sense. We're talking about arrows, however, so maybe it would be more useful to just say what an arrow means in Raku if the (rare) Perl user bumps into it.

[0rir]

@JJ, You have my apology for my poor blame reading.

Whenever altering the docs or code, I will try to improve the readability, that includes tone, brevity, flow, and use of an extended international English.

I think mentioning Raku's use of -> is more worthwhile than it's off-topicness. I found some claims of Raku's Perl-likeness to be misleading. Pointing out homonyms across languages is helpful.

If there is no dereferencing happening with the dot, then that can be deleted.

What confuses me is the applicability of this "dereferencing" to: $object.callable-trait()($arg), and its dotty version $object.callable-trait.($arg). My leaning is not appllicable, but that relies on my chosen level of abstraction. That level may be odd.