Re: policy regarding DEFUNs in subr-x.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Štěpán Němec <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 16:46:36 +0100
> 
> Now, it does seem sensible for the function to be a normal, not inline,
> function, but what about the commentary and all the other defsubsts,
> including the other string utilities?
> 
> If the no-defun policy should be changed, or if I was mistaken in
> believing there was one to begin with, shouldn't the commentary
> recommending compile-time usage be removed, and at least some of the
> other defsubsts turned into defuns, too?

I don't see that the commentary says the code in this file must be
inline.  If something in the wording implies that, let's change the
wording so that it doesn't.

>From my POV, there's no reason to require that everything in that file
is inlined, and that single "outlier" is the evidence.