> The whole concept of "lag" with the rate limit is complicated.
I must agree on that point, their interpretation is subtle.
> At one point I thought this should be a debugging detail, rather than
> exposing the user to it. The problem is that if you do that, you might
> not notice that your limit failed to work as expected. Maybe it's good
> enough in a case like this that the user will see they tried to limit at
> 10000, but they only got 7135, so something must not have worked as
> expected.
Yep. As I suggested in answering to Tatsuo, the process can catch up
later, so you could have 10000 in the end even with something amiss.
--
Fabien.
