I was going to say "d'oh, that's locking 101", but the original article indeed does that kind of a thing with the else branch. They should have chosen a better

I was going to say "d'oh, that's locking 101", but the original article indeed does that kind of a thing with the else branch. They should have chosen a better example do demonstrate the point, but it's hard to say if the current racy behaviour is even wrong because they didn't have any real-life semantics/use-case in the example...