Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <ava...@gmail.com> writes: > Agreed. I'm happy to see the test for-loop gone as I noted in > https://public-inbox.org/git/87d0rm7zeo....@evledraar.gmail.com/ but as > noted in that v3 feedback the whole "why would anyone want this?" > explanation is still missing, and this still smells like a workaround > for a bug we should be fixing elsewhere in the sequencing code.
Thanks. I share the same impression that this is sweeping a bug under a wrong rug.
