On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 08:42:18AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> What I intended to say is similar to what you have done in the patch
> but in a new function. OTOH, your point that it is okay to change
> function signature/name in the test module seems reasonable to me.
Thanks. Let's do with the function change then. As introduced
orginally in b488c58, it returns an array that gets just unnested
once, so I'd like to think that it had better be a SRF from the
start but things are what they are.
--
Michael
