My post was carefully measured to avoid the "rabidly anti-P6" charge, which if you take the time to look, I am not.

Disillusioned, disheartened, twice 10 times shy and skeptical maybe; but not anti-P6.

I thought and still think that v5 perfectly matches those words.

That's where the falseness comes in. It implies that you've taken "use" to mean 'play with', 'experiment', 'try out'. That isn't "use".

And the v5 project shows the same naivety and unnecessary flexibility that has hallmarked every one of the sub-projects that surround and make up P6.

Why is it necessary (or even useful) to have it enabled at block scope?

That just makes it 10 times more complicated than if it was done on a per-file basis. If existing P5 modules could be loaded and interoperate with P6 code, that would answer everyones prayers. And it might actually be doable in a reasonable time-frame. I see no benefit (beyond maybe a little one-off wow factor) of mixing P5 and P6 code in the same file. Makes no sense.

Another example of misleading information

The SameFringe example posted at Rosetta. Does any one of the various P6(ish) implementations run that example lazily?

Any of them? Even semi-lazily (batched) as hinted at in the writeup?

Or is every current implementation of take & gather, just push to a hidden array and then iterate that array?