>>>If you add one more, there would be an error.
>>
>>Use a table then there is virtually no limit.
>
>It was not my question of possible workarounds. I just wanted a confirmation of this particular limit.

May I ask why you replied as you did? It is obvious what you wanted. It is obvious you did not request workarounds. Therefore no reply was necessary from you.

When I am presented with a silly limit, I find a way to work around the limit and then I drop the limited methodology from my practice.