tried your code modification. Behaviour remains exactly the same. My point with "next" was, that it should not be necessary. If I'd put last instead of next after the recursion call, that'd change the semantics, because in that case, I always would look only at the first element of @out.

OK - BUT I TRIED IT: I just hardcore put the "last" in there. Result: The same - although there is the "last" statement, the interpreter remains in the @out loop. And that IS a bug. Definitely.