[email protected] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > [email protected] (Ludovic Courtès) skribis: > >> [email protected] (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") skribis: > > [...] > >>> So in the worst case we can just turn that par-for-each into a for-each >>> and still get benefits. >> >> Right. >> >> Mark, WDYT? >> >> I would say: go for it, and let’s switch back to ‘for-each’ if/when we >> have evidence of things going wrong. > > So, Taylan, OK to push the latest version of the patch (the one in > <[email protected]> if I’m not mistaken)! > > Thank you, > Ludo’.
Done! Taylan
