Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:95525
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain mudsite.com designates 209.85.217.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADVQu1QXag1h_hnOcFYejMbsDrV+4ZQCwKNJmb4EedBB6S33Ww@mail.gmail.com>
 <1e6cac8a-e1af-c9e7-a900-a2efda0771dd@gmx.de> <BY2PR0201MB17843B394401BED590828E3ABFE30@BY2PR0201MB1784.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CADyq6s+2VdTkeBM8gM_pmH=M=jJd3aYzKU5WKu8iGjiopNbPPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BY2PR0201MB1784EC2F73A3384B39013287BFE30@BY2PR0201MB1784.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <e6544e5e-7c47-b7ee-4067-85897d0035b9@gmx.de> <CADVQu1Sf5r2xt9Vj+-OyT1gfGGROxXacwbXWd5x8mzTh-NMwfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADVQu1ToLqo05Pwq-zVQLv5fYxtMa4oL6rVVOyMqXbUD=BQ6iQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADVQu1ToLqo05Pwq-zVQLv5fYxtMa4oL6rVVOyMqXbUD=BQ6iQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 00:05:44 +0000
Message-ID: <CADVQu1SMuR1eXBWdQDVYJPCVDVzC4fz1biNv_EFOjWEuf6EwRg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@gmx.de>, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>, 
	Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>, Nikita Popov <nikic@php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114407d8445d8e053b66fa90
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][VOTE] E_WARNING on invalid container read-adccess
From: dave@mudsite.com (David Walker)

--001a114407d8445d8e053b66fa90
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:49 AM David Walker <dave@mudsite.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:48 AM David Walker <dave@mudsite.com> wrote:
>
>> I too get Dmitry's result.  As the left hand side is an error-zval, and
>> the right hand is null, it explodes.  Yes, the hackish way I try and
>> resolve things was to check opcodes around the current one, which I should
>> have thought in the case of addition wouldn't have been valid.  The entire
>> goal of the RFC was to prevent warning for obvious results (as it specifies
>> on long string of accesses).  One, thought about and ignored by me, aspect
>> to the RFC was the concept of a null entity.  Wherein any array access on
>> null would result with null.  I believe this could result in resolving many
>> of the headaches I'm attempting to resolve by managing a null-return from
>> array access as a literal null, or unknown cast to null.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 4:36 AM Christoph M. Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 31.08.2016 at 12:10, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
>>>
>>> > no. if you would try the proposed PR with this code, you would see:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Unsupported operand types
>>>
>>> I get the following behavior against PR #1269:
>>>
>>> $ sapi/cli/php -n -d error_reporting=-1 -r "\$a = [null]; \$c = null;
>>> var_dump(\$a[0][0] + \$c[0]);"
>>>
>>> Notice: Trying to get index of a non-array in Command line code on line 1
>>>
>>> Notice: Trying to get index of a non-array in Command line code on line 1
>>> int(0)
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>>
>>> > ________________________________
>>> > From: Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com>
>>> > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:10:23 AM
>>> > To: Dmitry Stogov
>>> > Cc: Christoph M. Becker; PHP Internals List; Nikita Popov; David Walker
>>> > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][VOTE] E_WARNING on invalid container
>>> read-adccess
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Hi Dmitry,
>>> >
>>> > On 31 Aug 2016 8:37 a.m., "Dmitry Stogov" <dmitry@zend.com<mailto:
>>> dmitry@zend.com>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I vote NO, because the implementation introduces more problems than
>>> intents to fix.
>>> >>
>>> >> For example the following code starts to throw exception:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> <?php $a = [null]; $c = null; var_dump($a[0][0] + $c[0]); ?>
>>> >
>>> > Isn't that the point of this RFC?
>>> > I would expect this code to only ever work by accident.
>>> >
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> Apologies in advance for the toppost.  Gmail is the bane of my existence
> in regards to mailing lists.
>

Hi all,

As of now, the scheduled time the vote is to close, the RFC stands 19-4
(accepted).  Given this is my first solo RFC, I'm not really sure protocol
to go from here.  Dmitry does raise that the implementation I put forward
maybe a bit hackish compared to what someone much more knowledgeable could
implement.  So I'm not certain if the RFC should be deemed accepted, or,
fall into the howto section 7(3) and go back to discussion (if it is
considered a serious issue).

Direction appreciated.

--
Dave

--001a114407d8445d8e053b66fa90--