Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Thanks for following up on this. > > Rather than hardcoding 100 wouldn't it make sense to have something like > the below (which I barely checked for whether it compiled or not, just > to check how hard it was to change), so that we can just set this to a > "false" value to disable the nesting guard entirely? I agree that could be a better endgame if it works. That is where our agreement ends. I strongly prefer to have a small and focused fix for immediate problem at hand, and then a fundamental "(could be) better" change separately, so that we can cool the latter longer. This difference between us is not limited to this topic. I often get irritated to see an attempt to jump to the endgame with too big a change in a single step. Please don't. Thanks.
