Re: Implicit isset in ternary operator

So... I was thinking of proposing that we perhaps leave Arrays as is w/r/t undefined indices, while fixing up the ArrayObject gaps and making that the "smart" one (wrap/box in an AO if you want expanded/overloadable functionality). That idea was based on my belief that ArrayObject::offsetGet already failed gracefully, from the docs: "Returns: The value at the specified index or FALSE." Don't think so. Seems like it returns NULL and fires a notice as with an array. Doc bug I guess, as as returning FALSE would be pretty ambiguous. -- S.