Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90920 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 33771 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2016 14:46:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Jan 2016 14:46:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:19810] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id CB/20-29383-92536A65 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 09:46:02 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.240.16.115]) (Authenticated sender: flaupretre@free.fr) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 334094B01DD; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:44:07 +0100 (CET) To: Andrea Faulds , internals@lists.php.net References: <56A3A01F.1020500@php.net> <05.16.03822.D5AE3A65@pb1.pair.com> Message-ID: <56A63522.1070807@php.net> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:45:54 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 160125-0, 25/01/2016), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Generalize support of negative string offsets From: francois@php.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=c3=a7ois_Laupretre?=) Hi Andrea, Le 23/01/2016 22:10, Andrea Faulds a écrit : > > Er, ignore what I just said. Negative string offsets are actually > special-cased and always produce an "Unitialized string offset" or > "Invalid string offset" notice. So our current behaviour is in fact > completely useless, not just mostly. :) Thanks for your comments. Following your suggestion, I just added some examples of negative offset usage. About BC breaks, the RFC just adds support for currently-invalid values. In every cases, these values would have generated a notice or a warning, and the value would have been considered as zero. So, I consider these BC breaks as minor because of error messages. But determining if such BC breaks are compatible with a minor release will be the main objective of the vote. Regards François