Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:91183
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain basereality.com from 209.85.160.175 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGa2bXbNt-SYhR6kQnqZh57qzrjhO55gF0WoVpmaoTpn7-6ing@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56A3A01F.1020500@php.net>
	<CAF+90c-rh5uss4xTjbvvjr6PO5iAYaQ=DQRbVNr+h1kMm8HW9A@mail.gmail.com>
	<56AE8735.4070901@gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c8khmu=fxUzP-JX1PGjcgKzvhd6W+bsaZUk_OUALkgrig@mail.gmail.com>
	<56AFC8CC.6040201@gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c-XQOpK9Gm6BOv-JndZxXThVwxtU2rqLAMA2XpBz4w01w@mail.gmail.com>
	<56B6680F.6070804@gmail.com>
	<56B8AFC1.7040100@php.net>
	<CAGa2bXZeMtZp1A8EPAFYntQM9y4YDAf2NV2k-TOq3AXYZ3_+gw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXbNt-SYhR6kQnqZh57qzrjhO55gF0WoVpmaoTpn7-6ing@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:34:54 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+kxMuRwJHnZ0EQAwpgiGYhp4gecaRLGA1iOVCFjQ=4vaey7jQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7ois_Laupretre?= <francois@php.net>, 
	Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Generalize support of negative string offsets
From: danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd)

On 10 February 2016 at 07:00, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote:
> Additional comment on this
>
> php > $v=3Darray(1,2,3);
> php > $v .=3D 'abc';
>
> I think $v .=3D 'abc' should not destroy array variable. It's minor issue=
, though.

That is the current behaviour. Trying to slip "bug fixes" into RFCs is
a very bad pattern to follow.

If this should be fixed, it should be done as part of a separate RFC.

> This insane string assignment raises E_NOTICE. PHP may be better to
> raise E_WARNING for this kind of invalid assignments just like

Fran=C3=A7ois already wrote an RFC for this
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/array-to-string that passed, but apparently
could not be implemented safely, which is a shame. That RFC needs to
be resurrected imo. But again, changing that behaviour needs to be
separate, and not part of this RFC.

cheers
Dan