>> Yes, exporting 'request' alone would serve my purpose, although >> 'define-http-verb' would make my script much shorter. But, I'll leave it >> to your judgement. Should I send a new patch exporting 'request' alone? > > Could you do that? The ‘request’ procedure can simply be made public > and otherwise left unchanged, but we’d need a docstring and an entry in > the manual. Can you take a look?
Yes, I'll send you a patch within a few days. > I’ll happily apply the patch afterwards, and I promise you won’t have to > wait as much as you did so far! :-) I am generally quite patient with patch review, but yes, this one did take too long. :-)
