JSON Array inside an array

http://www.json.org/
Why not create the data structure you want, and then use JSON_Encode() to create the JSON string?  Easy!

Keep in mind, however, that JSON will decode a JSON String into an object with UTF-8 encoding.  That is just how it works.  So even if you start with an outer array you will get an object back from the process.  Inner arrays are preserved.
http://www.laprbass.com/RAY_temp_tonelm54.php

<?php // RAY_temp_tonelm54.php
error_reporting(E_ALL);

$jso = <<<EOD
{
"type" : "combo",
"attribute" : "LIST",
"Values" : {"Male","Female"}
}
EOD;

// CREATE THE TEST DATA
$dat = array
( 'type'      => 'combo'
, 'attribute' => 'LIST'
, 'Values'    => array( 'Male', 'Female' )
)
;

// ENCODE INTO A JSON STRING FOR TRANSPORT
$jso = json_encode($dat);

// DECODE THE STRING INTO AN OBJECT
$obj = json_decode($jso);

// WHAT IS IN THE ORIGINAL AND THE OBJECT?
var_dump($dat);
var_dump($obj);

Select allOpen in new window

$strJSONTest = '{"type" : "combo", "attribute" : "LIST", "Values" : {"1": "Male", "2": "Female"} }';

This will fix it.
The matter is it can't analyze the json cause it's invalid.

@ienaxxx: It will create a valid JSON string, but it will not decode the inner structure Values into an array.  To get the array, you would need to use brackets instead of curly braces.

<?php // RAY_temp_ienaxxx.php
error_reporting(E_ALL);

$jso = <<<EOD
{
"type" : "combo",
"attribute" : "LIST",
"Values" : ["Male","Female"]
}
EOD;

// DECODE THE STRING INTO AN OBJECT
$obj = json_decode($jso);

// WHAT IS IN THE OBJECT?
var_dump($obj);

Select allOpen in new window

I have this result:

stdClass Object ( [type] => combo [attribute] => LIST [Values] => stdClass Object ( [1] => Male [2] => Female ) )

Select allOpen in new window

and this if i use the boolean ASSOC as the second parameter. ( $jsonArr = json_decode($strJSONTest, true);   )

Array ( [type] => combo [attribute] => LIST [Values] => Array ( [1] => Male [2] => Female ) )

Select allOpen in new window

So i think you are wrong. :-)

ienaxxx beat me to the punch. I always use the optional "true" parameter with json_decode so I get the original array back instead of an object.

Wrong, or at best, Lazy!  I find that the object-oriented notation is so much easier to write that I actively avoid using an array if I can use an object instead.  For every property I save a few keystrokes and eliminate the fiddly punctuation in the brackets and quotes.  I never even looked at the second parameter of JSON_Decode()!  Also, I have not tested the notation for transport so I don't know what it would do in JavaScript or another programming language.

The JSON results should be the same, no matter what method you use to encode/decode. If it's a plain array where keys aren't explicitly set, then encoding should produce the square-bracket notation that Ray mentioned: [ "X", "Y", "Z" ].

What ienaxxx produced was technically wrong, because it would change the keys (since array keys start at 0), but his formatting was technically correct:

...{"1": "Male", "2": "Female"} ...
Will produce:
[1] => Male
[2] => Female

[ "Male", "Female"]
Will produce:
[0] => Male
[1] => Female

...{"0": "Male", "1": "Female"} ...
Will produce:
[0] => Male
[1] => Female

So if you don't need to specify the keys/indexes, then use the square bracket notation for arrays. If you customize your keys, then use the { "Key" : "Value" } notation. The notation itself isn't "object-oriented" or "array-oriented". The only thing that turns a JSON string into an object or an array is the decoding step.

Just to be extra-clear, the reason that decoding didn't work is because you tried to use { } brackets without specifying the keys.

{ } means that you are going to specify the contents in the format of:
"KeyA" : "ValueA", "KeyB" : "ValueB"

[ ] means that you are going to specify the contents in the format of:
"ValueA", "ValueB"
(and JSON decoding provides the keys)

So:
{"Male","Female"} is wrong

["Male","Female"] is right
{"0":"Male","1":"Female" } is also right

Strange choice for the answer. I would have expected 39180990.