[PATCH 0 of 5] simplify new portability code

[Kevin Gessner]

On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Adrian Buehlmann <adrian at cadifra.com> wrote:
> On 2011-05-01 08:49, Adrian Buehlmann wrote:
>> On 2011-05-01 08:22, Augie Fackler wrote:
>>> On May 1, 2011, at 1:20 AM, Adrian Buehlmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> see patches. No functional change.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Mercurial-devel mailing list
>>>> Mercurial-devel at selenic.com
>>>> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
>>>
>>> Is there some particular reason to inline these functions? I feel like it doesn't add clarity to inline them in most cases, and can make it harder for extensions to reuse them in meaningful ways.
>>>
>>
>> I feel quite the opposite.
>
> And instead of the current maze of pointless inefficient misleading little
> functions, we could do a much cleaner abstraction like this one (applies
> *on top* of my series, untested):

If you'll finish, test, and submit this patch, I'll be +1 on the whole
series. It's a nice abstraction. Without this, however, I'm -1, as
it's a lot of refactoring for very little benefit.