Rendering Error in layout Message/Item: array_keys(): Argument #1 ($array) must be of type array, null given. Please enable debug mode for more information.

Hello,

I don't think it should be allowed, or, if it is allowed, it should yield the semantic equivalent of { ?, 2, 3 }.

It should definitely not yield the semantics of { *, 2, 3 } as that would totally change the semantics of the from AnyElementOrNone to AnyElementsOrNone.

The ? has the same semantics as integer:* in a context where no omit can occur (as is the case in a record of).

BR, Jacob Wieland

Do you think I should raise a CR for this?
Though the semantic equivalent should be rather {? ifpresent, 2, 3} as
each element of a recordof can be regarded as being optional

BR.,
Uwe

Once, I thought so, too. But this view is not standard conform. An element of a record of value is either undefined or defined, never omit (though the distinction between omit and undefined is largely academic ;-))

So, yes, implicitly, it would be '? ifpresent', but since the ifpresent part has no effect inside a recordof as no field can be omit, this is equivalent to simply '?'.

If that is not clear from the standard, then a CR for clarification is warranted.

BR, Jacob Wieland

Rendering Error in layout Message/Item: array_keys(): Argument #1 ($array) must be of type array, null given. Please enable debug mode for more information.