Re: 5.4 regression: non-existent sub-sub keys now have values

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 03:31, Daniel Convissor <danielc@analysisandsolutions.com> wrote: > Hi Etienne: > >> AFAIK this is one of the change that was explicitly put in to make it >> more consistent. > > But now it breaks code in the wild.  I came across this due to an > isset() in PEAR now passing when it didn't before. PEAR is definitely doing some strange things :) Is it checking indices of a variables without checking first if it's an array? Sounds like the comeback of "Please don't break bad code!" seen with is_a :) IMO it still makes sense to make that change for 5_4, makes everything less magic and more consistent. > > Thanks, > > --Dan > > -- >  T H E   A N A L Y S I S   A N D   S O L U T I O N S   C O M P A N Y >            data intensive web and database programming >                http://www.AnalysisAndSolutions.com/ >  4015 7th Ave #4, Brooklyn NY 11232  v: 718-854-0335 f: 718-854-0409 > -- Etienne Kneuss http://www.colder.ch