On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 08:55:49AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 31 May 2013 08:34, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> > On 31 May 2013 02:52, Dean Rasheed 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 tha
On 31 May 2013 08:34, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> On 31 May 2013 02:52, Dean Rasheed 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
On 31 May 2013 02:52, Dean Rasheed 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
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
