I've been re-reading the last few days of posts to collect what is to be changed about the RFC on what has seemed to come to a consensus and my apologies Stas, I did not catch exactly what you meant by this statement:
> > Exactly my point. Your code (with != NULL) will return false while real > > isset() will return true. But all that really needs to be changed is that the automatically implemented isset() code should use !== instead of !=, then it perfectly satisfies the exact way that isset/unset work.
