On 31 May 2013 08:34, Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31 May 2013 02:52, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Testing 9.3beta, it seems that array_remove() may return an empty 1-d
>> array whose upper bound is lower than its lower bound. I know that we
>> discussed allowing this kind of array, but I don't think that
>> discussion reached any conclusion, other than to agree that the
>> current empty 0-d array behaviour would be kept in 9.3.
>>
>
> That's right, zero-D is still the only supported representation of an
> empty array, so when array_remove() yields an empty array it ought to
> be zero-D. Good catch.
>
Yeah, that's what I thought. Here's a patch to fix it, plus a new
regression test to confirm that the result is a zero-D array.
Regards,
Dean
