Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:14390 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 43546 invoked by uid 1010); 14 Jan 2005 16:54:04 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 69995 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2005 16:42:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Jan 2005 16:42:21 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 84.204.52.251 unknown OpenBSD 3.0-3.4 Received: from ([84.204.52.251:38060] helo=promo.hnet.spb.ru) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity HEAD (r4059)) with SMTP id 47/C4-22851-BFA87E14 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:03:56 -0500 Received: from w2k (unknown [192.168.3.118]) by promo.hnet.spb.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0978B1BAC51; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:03:44 +0300 (MSK) To: "'Moriyoshi Koizumi'" Cc: "'internals Mailing List Developers'" Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:07:49 +0300 Message-ID: <000101c4fa18$856849e0$0a02a8c0@w2k> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4EDBD41E-656F-11D9-B4B2-000A95CE0C62@at.wakwak.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Subject: RE: #31098 [Csd]: isset false positive From: dmitry@zend.com ("Dmitry Stogov") References: <4EDBD41E-656F-11D9-B4B2-000A95CE0C62@at.wakwak.com> Hi Moriyoshi, I restored old behavior, so now $str["str"] is eqivalent of $str[0]. Thanks. Dmitry. > -----Original Message----- > From: Moriyoshi Koizumi [mailto:moriyoshi@at.wakwak.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 17:28 > To: dmitry@zend.com > Cc: 'internals Mailing List Developers' > Subject: Re: #31098 [Csd]: isset false positive > > > > On 2005/01/13, at 15:21, wrote: > > >> I don't quite agree with you. Indeed it's semantically > wrong, yet I > >> think we leave it to behave as in ZE1, in terms of backwards > >> compatibility. > > > > I don't think we must make compatibility for bugs. > > Users don't consider a certain behaviour that lasts for years > the way we do to be a bug, even if it is inconsistent and > rationally wrong, since they often got used to it and > supposedly developed some workaround for it while we can > rarely predict how they code with it and cope with it. > > Thus we should think of what the word "backwards > compatibility" does actually mean. > > Moriyoshi > >