Hmm. We're getting into "distant memory" here, so I could very well
be wrong.
But I *thought* that the original array implementation would return a
0 or a -1. It's possible that in the value_array consolidation that
this behavior was lost...? I'm not sure.
Other than that, I can't thin
I recently spent several days attempting to track down a bug in the
trunk, finally finding that the root cause was linked to a rather
strange behavior of the opal_value_array class.
If you call opal_value_array_get_item and request an index that is
beyond that of the current size of the arr
