Thoughts on masak's Perl 6 Coding Contest

Masak's Perl 6 Coding Contest (short p6cc) is now in its final stage - the public commentary of solutions. So far masak has commented on p1, p2, and p3. I enjoyed the reviews and explanations so far, and look forward to more (except to the p4 review, because I botched the solution to this one).

The reviews made a good read, and here are only a few very minor points that I find worth mentioning. No criticism intended (neither to the author nor the reviewer).

• Matthias' p1 solution uses side effects in subroutine named to-string. I would avoid that in "production" code (for whatever I might mean with that word...), since it's not what I would expect from the name. Instead of a counter, the array indexes could be used to identify which matrix to stringify.
• Masak's review of fox' p1 solution contains the question I wonder why the @items array deserved a plural but the @matrix only a singular.... I'd say that's because @matrix holds one matrix, but @items holds many items. Speaking of which, I don't like the name @matrix - it describe a structure rather than the contents. The structure becomes pretty obvious through the access, but what is in the matrix?
• After viewing my own p1 submission without syntax hilighting, I wonder why I chose so many double blank lines. My vim color scheme uses a dark blue for comments, which means that comment blocks need more visual distance from code, in my personal opinion. But when sharing code, I shouldn't make layout decisions based on non-shared syntax hilighting.
• colomon's p2 submission uses complex numbers for coordinates. I considered that myself, and there's nothing wrong with it. Just strange that he then reinvented subtraction of two complex numbers in sub lines-intersect. Maybe he didn't want to come up with names for the intermediate results, $slope and $axes-intercept might have been viable ones.
• Matthias could have simplified comb: /<&number>/ to just comb: &number -- a regex is just a callable, and when it's explicit in the current scope, you can just use a hard reference to it.
• colomon's p3 solution could, as far as I can tell, replace all regexes with tokens - less backtracking, fewer surprises.
• Reviewing my own p3 solution, masak asked I wonder what stopped moritz from, rather than doing $_ && .including on line 39, doing .?including instead. Either he considered that too cute, or he didn't consider it. I did consider it, but I decided against it, because the two things are subtly different. Mine only calls the method if the topic is true, whereas .?including always tries the call - even on a type object, where accessing an attribute leads to a fatal error. I think in my code that case doesn't show up, but it did appear during debugging in earlier versions.