Radu Hociung wrote:
loop in its includes, I'll ignore it, with the note below.
Thanks for these interesting numbers. Wayne's 3*10 implicitly
gets a loop soon enough. For an overall limit like 40 that's
in theory dubious. OTOH the worst case of a loop would need
only 2 "real" queries, the remaining 38 answers come from the
cache, and that's okay for a PermError without any additional
"loop detection".
Some of the early drafts explicitly mentioned "loop detection",
and I also mumbled something about 10+40 two weeks ago only to
catch loops, but that was wrong. And 10+40 won't help Scott,
he needs about 20. Your stats also indicate that 20 could be
a good limit. But without a much broader sample I'd still say
that 40 is safer.
Bye, Frank