No, this is not about me. I know this bug now. I'll never do it again and even if I did I'd immediately know what's wrong with my code. This is for example about MasterQ32:
I ran into this problem some time ago that the for-loop doesn't work like expected if you use wait.
I also don't think this the usage of a for loop is bizarre. While the sample I originally posted is clearly pointless there actually are applications where this kind of a for loop is very elegant:
for (my-frame = 0; ; wait(1))
my->frame += time_step;
You're a very experienced software engineer, probably much more experienced than me. But I still don't think that you're doing yourself or anybody else a favor when mentioning bugs in the manual instead of fixing them.
I think your users do not prefer new features over correct software. If the new WED gets delayed one working day because of this bug being fixed most users will gladly accept this.
Once again: Your software, your decision. I hold you in high regard for caring about this great piece of software for such a long time. It's just that I simply don't get your point here.
