Hi John,
Thanks for the detailed feedback.
> In short, a focused, genuine clarity-only change might be worth doing,
> but this patch is not the way to do it.
Understood. I agree that this version mixes the goal of making the
existing NumericVar contract more explicit with new inline-buffer
machinery that is closer to a performance-oriented change. That makes
the patch harder to review and does not fit the clarity-only framing
well.
I will withdraw this version rather than keep iterating on it in its
current form. If I come back to this, I will try to prepare a much
smaller patch focused only on documenting and clarifying the existing
NumericVar contract, without introducing new inline-buffer machinery or
changing the storage model so broadly.
Thanks also for the process advice. I will use inline quoting and
versioned patches generated with git format-patch -vN in future
submissions.
Thanks again for taking a look.
Regards,
Chenhui Mo
