Hi Pierre,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pierre"
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006
> Hello,
>
> On 8/13/06, Matt W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I didn't know whether to make an official bug report or send to the
list --
> > so I'm trying this first. :-)
>
> You already tried in the previous thread about is_numeric.
I was [originally] just mentioning it as an aside, since it uses
is_numeric_string(). But the "is_numeric..." subject isn't right IMO for
this separate problem (even though it uses is_numeric...). :-) And I
wouldn't send a patch for the array function in the other thread. Oh, and
finally, when I first mentioned it there I had just discovered it, and
didn't realize the difference with 4.x. Now I *know* the behavior is
wrong -- the fact that it was changed in 5 *is the bug* which caused the
previous reports.
> > var_dump(array_count_values(array(' 001', 1, ' 1 ', '1')));
> >
> > Expected result (and what PHP 4 gives):
> > array(3) {
> > [" 001"]=>
> > int(1)
> > [1]=>
> > int(2)
> > [" 1 "]=>
> > int(1)
> > }
> >
> > Actual result:
> > array(2) {
> > [1]=>
> > int(3)
> > [" 1 "]=>
> > int(1)
> > }
> > Can this patch please be applied for 5.2's release? To maintain what
I'm
> > sure is the correct behavior from PHP 4, the function needs to use the
> > zend_[u_]symtable* functions, which take care of *correctly* handling
> > numeric strings, as zend_hash_[find|update] did in 4.x. If they
would've
> > been used in 5+ in the first place, there wouldn't have been bugs like
> > #34723 (still present with leading whitespace, as you can see), #30833,
> > #29808, etc. (I guess that's all, actually). :-)
> > The updated code should be faster, too...
>
> As I said in the previous discussion (why in the world have you
> splitted it out?), I don't think it is reasonable or safe to apply
> this patch in 5.2. Secondly it seems to wrong address the problem. You
> work around the actual is_numeric "problems" by suppressing its usage.
Not reasonable or safe? Then why were the other bugs fixed instead of being
marked "Bogus" if array_count_values() was *supposed* to behave differently
in 5? Because it's not supposed to! There should never have been a
change -- just simply changing the word "hash" to "symtable". That's *it*.
Functionality would've remained the same, as it should. But for some
reason, this wasn't realized, and instead of trying to figure out *how* the
function worked as it did in 4.x, this hack with is_numeric() was added,
which still doesn't work correctly. (Also makes things a good amount
slower, which I verified since the last e-mail.)
And of course I'm suppressing is_numeric's usage, because it shouldn't be
there. You see that leading 0's are *still* being lost if preceded by
whitespace?
> Doing so reintroduce the numeric string keys problem (what addresses
> the removed code).
No, why would it?! :-) 4.x didn't have the problem. With the updated code,
the HANDLE_NUMERIC() macro (in symtable functions) will take care of *true*
numeric string keys (which is *exactly* what happened in 4.x), just as it
does with $array['123'] -- is_numeric isn't used there because it would
screw up stuff like it is in array_count_values().
> I think it is much more safer to first determine the general policy
> for is_numeric and then address this problem. It is too late in the
> game to change such behaviors in 5.x (I care little about 4.x
> compatibility).
There is nothing unsafe about this change, as it will simply be back to
4.x's *bug-free* behavior. Run the existing array_count_values() tests and
they'll pass. That's what they're there for, right? This has nothing to do
with "4.x compatibility," but correct operation, which happened to be there
in 4.x. :-)
is_numeric should have nothing to do with this, because leading whitespace
can't be ignored, just like it isn't with $array[' 123']. HANDLE_NUMERIC()
does everything that's trying to be done now with "hacks" and then some (and
much faster and more efficiently).
Just compare my updated 5.2 code to 4.x's and you'll see it's the same
(except for layout changes, etc. and my using the ZVAL_LONG() macro in 2
places :-)) other than the word "symtable" instead of "hash". Then, compare
5.2's "symtable" functions to 4.x's "hash" ones, and you'll see that their
end result is exactly the same.
> Cheers,
> --Pierre
Matt
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
