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
