[PATCH 0 of 5] simplify new portability code

[Adrian Buehlmann]

(please keep the list cc, thanks)

On 2011-05-01 09:22, Kevin Gessner wrote:
> 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.

Of course I will.