=head1 Tasks that only need Perl knowledge
-=head2 Smartmatch design issues
-
-In 5.10.0 the smartmatch operator C<~~> isn't working quite "right". But
-before we can fix the implementation, we need to define what "right" is.
-The first problem is that Robin Houston implemented the Perl 6 smart match
-spec as of February 2006, when smart match was axiomatically symmetrical:
-L<http://groups.google.com/group/perl.perl6.language/msg/bf2b486f089ad021>
-
-Since then the Perl 6 target moved, but the Perl 5 implementation did not.
-
-So it would be useful for someone to compare the Perl 6 smartmatch table
-as of February 2006 L<http://svn.perl.org/viewvc/perl6/doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod?view=markup&pathrev=7615>
-and the current table L<http://svn.perl.org/viewvc/perl6/doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod?revision=14556&view=markup>
-and tabulate the differences in Perl 6. The annotated view of changes is
-L<http://svn.perl.org/viewvc/perl6/doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod?view=annotate> and the diff is
-C<svn diff -r7615:14556 http://svn.perl.org/perl6/doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod>
--- search for C<=head1 Smart matching>. (In theory F<viewvc> can generate that,
-but in practice when I tried it hung forever, I assume "thinking")
-
-With that done and published, someone (else) can then map any changed Perl 6
-semantics back to Perl 5, based on how the existing semantics map to Perl 5:
-L<http://search.cpan.org/~rgarcia/perl-5.10.0/pod/perlsyn.pod#Smart_matching_in_detail>
-
-
-There are also some questions that need answering:
-
-=over 4
-
-=item *
-
-How do you negate one? (documentation issue)
-http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2008-01/msg00071.html
-
-=item *
-
-Array behaviors
-http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2007-12/msg00799.html
-
-* Should smart matches be symmetrical? (Perl 6 says no)
-
-* Other differences between Perl 5 and Perl 6 smart match?
-
-=item *
-
-Objects and smart match
-http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2007-12/msg00865.html
-
-=back
-
=head2 Remove duplication of test setup.
Schwern notes, that there's duplication of code - lots and lots of tests have