Sorry, but your problem does not imply a bug in PHP itself.  For a
list of more appropriate places to ask for help using PHP, please
visit http://www.php.net/support.php as this bug system is not the
appropriate forum for asking support questions.  Due to the volume
of reports we can not explain in detail here why your report is not
a bug.  The support channels will be able to provide an explanation
for you.

Thank you for your interest in PHP.

It is possible to have numeric property names by other means:

    $o = new StdClass();
    $o->{123} = 'foo';
    var_dump($o);
    
This is a feature, and not a bug.

imho this is a bug, since this is a complete inconsistent behavior:

example from stackoverflow:

$a = array('123' => '123');
$o1 = (object)$a;
$o2 = new stdClass;
$o2->{'123'} = '123'; // setting property is OK

echo $o1->{'123'}; // error!
echo $o2->{'123'}; // works... WTF?

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10333016/how-to-access-object-properties-with-names-like-integers/10333200#10333200

IMHO, we really ought to fix that.

arrays store and access (rightfully, I guess) numeric keys as integers.
objects store and access all the keys as strings.

We maybe should do the same numeric access for dynamic properties on objects...

I don't think so, it will be overhead while casting or accessing for rarely cases..

just with a good document should be fine.

I don't think so, it will be overhead while casting or accessing for rarely cases..

just with a good document should be fine.

The behavior when casting object to array is already well
documented[1]:

> If an object is converted to an array, the result is an array
> whose elements are the object's properties. The keys are the
> member variable names, with a few notable exceptions: integer
> properties are unaccessible; [...]

[1] <http://php.net/manual/en/language.types.array.php#language.types.array.casting>

@laruence: note that the overhead will only exist for dynamic property accesses (non-CONST VM operand and only on a dynamic access - meaning when there is no fast access to property table). Which should be a rare enough case … and that particular case is already relatively slow.

I think we could afford it?

Duplicate of bug #66173.