Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > Yeah, to be honest I wasn't totally sure whether to include these steps > myself as I anticipated that they will lead to discussions that derail > my original goal, which is to clean up the interfaces in the object > subsystem. I decided to go with these where I thought that my train of > thought is reasonable, but given your comments I'll probably just drop > those patches. > > We can still adapt these callsites in the future as needed. It is probably why among our past rewrites and refactors, successful ones started with a rewrite faithful to the original, treating semantic improvements as a set of separate topics on top. I think some semantic-improvement steps like the http walker one make sense, but even for them, others may give us some reasons why it is not a good idea to cause me change my mind. On the other hand, steps I thought whose semantic changes were undesirable may turn out to be benign (they unquestionably will improve the performance of the call path; it was quesitonable to me if they still gave us correct results). So let's give people some time to evaluate. I'd consider these "improved behaviour" changes as "to be discarded by default, unless there are strong supporting arguments why the specific semantic changes are good" material. Thanks.
