UPDATE: I addressed my answer to the wrong node. 2teez initial node was modified after runrig pointed out the open issue. So please read this as if addressed, as intended, to 2teez. </UPDATE>
It's highly impolite to modify your (mistaken) post without acknowledging the update.
<UPDATE3 with strikeout in light of the reply, ack'ing that the sequence he asserts might have coincided nearly simultaneously with what I saw.>
It's even more so when you ADD a suggestion made by another Monk that was not included in your own original, inaccurate (and apparently, untested) advice. <RESUMING UPDATE3 NOTE: I continue to held the view that "your own original, inaccurate (and apparently, untested) advice...." was ill-considered.</RESUMING...>
- -, and dog votes be damned.
P.S. (and yes, this is an update, too) It's also wise to test your code (and that to which you're responding) to make sure yours
a) does what you thought it should do...
b) that your solution actually solves or illuminates OP's problem.