Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117463 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 81068 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2022 17:30:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 30 Mar 2022 17:30:28 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D6F1804C3 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 11:59:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-wr1-f46.google.com (mail-wr1-f46.google.com [209.85.221.46]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 11:59:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-f46.google.com with SMTP id d7so30612762wrb.7 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 11:59:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CbKE34RNczkZWbZHqUI4ThI4qW7z93ZpeCViFoGm0zY=; b=k/OJn2v1vmomBnIu8y2f7mXWodG2GGyixiR+jxHCfJ09nGq2jvoMOPF8wuhy8AykPg aZXiYraU5eQbVR0zbfwyUg/Zi/qIM70efgviUps/HG6RPDCjHs8wB0jqfmDCByVFk6dJ SD0ldxMq0lODM2sSdAUoxYPvPi43+ZV64HKKierbW7LhpTu82tPKC83OIAGZO7Jt13jV nrMJD2CATI2AmeSbH+9E12j/pHFWVDTZau1MKO/Wbp9ly/l3Vt3/lpzDYWmXzx6oz5bo xc5vlb8PIe69nJkvDInJqUF6kgLAWzFOKeyuNV3hkQXtyxS+jSyxevoFeLMB7cWfOmkw djNA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=CbKE34RNczkZWbZHqUI4ThI4qW7z93ZpeCViFoGm0zY=; b=MJ4ziYztwdZj+c0FzbZUrgS+UdakwweffoMzaZYu7LM5QNfS9BQL9Oy9XPweW/ib43 ojFgmcZqD9F3dc1R/yUH+tww/Cw4F1W2SO0RUGAX6FQxCiKkkJ/L3bm/fAIMvdfefU1t UB8qTBwmOzt5rk2hzhTSugrumQwPcsOJ8srq0mNWkbdZquqKG+3BfZq++nKJXOqKZZ9Z IDpxOlPO2dx8eexvJXWz5gzwkN4Sqth3kOg2ZwIII6Vcq1x+6bhXYvXb4RA2ofq2c1jJ KF+jb83I7gf1YzxCznd551fmKlKYJXldR52lkhMbB9JRfZLHUCdWNI5QbvSAtDJqOs5g NDtA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530b5gG4xW8bcbN81O6DQVLfi2RM5XTYP7eisMdaJ66Q5HaeXERK AyeCY6UheMjVS0bBCMPd8zGQ78L5z7c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzCtZ3GYytWG8FKEtFhtTjIFC8ibBOQ2hw1IyOuYDxmofwaO33Ge+bNC51qHXmZJRW06AZy1A== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:181a:b0:205:9051:ab6d with SMTP id m26-20020a056000181a00b002059051ab6dmr913241wrh.191.1648666739142; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 11:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.22] (cpc104104-brig22-2-0-cust548.3-3.cable.virginm.net. [82.10.58.37]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 20-20020a05600c22d400b0038c8dbdc1a3sm5332506wmg.38.2022.03.30.11.58.57 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Mar 2022 11:58:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2f767271-5e57-2c29-bab5-1ad12bbcc8e9@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 19:58:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: PHP Internals References: <9ecce8c9-c8bc-93e3-25f0-386c2c41ca1a@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Undefined variables and the array append operator From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins) On 30/03/2022 15:32, Guilliam Xavier wrote: > On the other hand, I agree that `$undefined[] = $x` looks like a > bug... are both cases the exact same opcode? Some very good points raised in this thread about how many different closely-related cases there are here. I shall have to think clearly about which cases we want to change, and look at the implementation to see how easily those can be separated out from the others. It sounds like there are at least some cases that might pass an RFC vote to change, though. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]