Re: Re: 5dee3c11 break

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote: > > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Levi Morrison <levim@php.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 6:43 AM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote: >> >>> zend_std_has_dimension() doesn't know what (check_empty == 2) means. >>> >>> check_empty == 0 - ISSET => we don't need to call offsetGet() and relay >>> on >>> offsetExists() return value. >>> check_empty == 1 - ISEMPTY => we should call offsetGet() after >>> offsetExists(). >>> >>> NULL values should be handled by offsetExists(). >>> >> >> I am a bit curious, isset checks that the variable exists >> and is not >> null; empty checks that the variable exists and is not >> empty. Why does >> one call offsetGet and not the other? Both look at the >> value. >> >> Sorry if I missed that bit of conversation. >> > > yeah, no problem :) > I also, don't talk that my opinion is completely right. > > I think that we make us and users more and more troubles with this messy > behavior. > > Actually, you introduced new behavior (NULL check) and broke at least ZF2 > and probably many based on it applications. > That isn't any new behavior, at least it shouldn't be. isset does not ONLY check existence, it checks that the value is not null; see http://php.net/isset It leads to crash and it'll make bad php experience. > Then someone will report it as a security problem and we all will be > blamed :( > We shouldn't make existing applications crash! > Agreed, but at least from what I understand the current behavior doesn't do what it is supposed to anyway. Sometimes bugs become features but I really don't see this as one of those. We should fix this. That's my $0.02.