On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Sara Golemon <poll...@php.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohg...@ohgaki.net> wrote: > >> >> >> If there aren't comments, I'll rewrite the example. >> >> >> There were comments. I explicitly told you that that the behavior is > defined as undefined. You CHOSE to ignore that comment. You CHOSE to > break the documentation. > With all due respect, how is the behavior undefined? Our parser defines the precedence of those operators being higher in the precedence table than the ones mentioned. The post inc/dec operators are also well-defined in returning their values "Returns $a, then increments $a by one." at www.php.net/language.operators.increment I present the source as well http://lxr.php.net/xref/PHP_5_5/Zend/zend_compile.c#1196 I'm confused about why you believe this is undefined behavior? Perhaps you can elaborate on why this should be left in the documentation as undefined despite what I believe to be clear evidence of definition. I don't see "discouraged behavior" and "undefined behavior" to be synonymous. I do feel it's OK to place notes/warnings in the manual about discouraged behavior, however, just as we do with nesting ternary operators.
