Re: not "autovivification", but ...?

From	"Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.php
Subject	Re: not "autovivification", but ...?
Date	2016-06-02 11:47 +0200
Organization	solani.org
Message-ID	<niovaj$a17$1@solani.org> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <1dc7bd11-343d-4cbb-b75d-1db8516666a0@googlegroups.com> <nin783$9qu$1@news.albasani.net> <d7cf47ca-3871-46e0-8434-b17ec1fe1440@googlegroups.com> <ninr5k$gee$1@news.albasani.net> <6429329.X1ROTxqqWj@PointedEars.de>

Show all headers | View raw

On 02.06.2016 at 02:16, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Stefan Weiss wrote:
> 
>> PS, a little off-topic: PHP is probably the worst language to work with in
>> this regard. It will happily allow implicit multi-level creation in arrays
>> -
>>
>>    // ($foo is unused up to this point)
>>    $foo["bar"][13]["baz"] = "qux";
> 
> This is so very useful. (No sarcasm.)
>  
>> - but will emit E_NOTICE (a type of error)
> 
> A common misonception.  It is a kind of debug message instead and can be 
> suppressed in various ways.
> 
>> if we try to read a nonexistent index ($foo["x"]).
>                                   ^^^^^
> The proper term is _key_, and if you write
> 
>   @$foo["x"]
> 
> the notice will go away without any extra configuration.

As well as all other notices, warnings, etc.  Not a problem in this
case, but consider:

  function keyName() {
      trigger_error('deprecated', E_USER_DEPRECATED);
      return 'x';
  }
  @$foo[keyName()];

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

Thread

Re: not "autovivification", but ...? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-02 02:16 +0200
  Re: not "autovivification", but ...? "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2016-06-02 11:47 +0200
    Re: not "autovivification", but ...? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-03 22:20 +0200
      Re: not "autovivification", but ...? "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2016-06-04 16:24 +0200

csiph-web