On 04-12-18 19:05, Alan DeKok wrote:
I've seen this behaviour in both 3.0.15 and the current v3.0.x (commit 8ef4848c34696caa0d61003470d321974049b794). The behaviour is not what I did expect, so I guess this is a bug. It's also a bug that is pretty to fix without breaking backwards compatibility.
It might be possible to fix it. To be honest, I don't think anyone really uses it that much.
if you can come up with a patch, I'm prepared to look at it and integrate it. But I don't have time to do it myself.
I could have seen that answer coming. I'll try to have a look at it, but it will take at least a week before I might have the chance to look at it.
We're fixing all of these issues by design in v4. But that's still a ways off, unfortunately.
I know -- Herwin Weststrate