> I would be happy to do a design doc for this and write some of the inner
> loops, but if (a) it's already being done or (b) there's no chance of it
> being deployed then it would be a waste of time...
> if there was definite interest in it (and reasonable schedule
> expectations) I could write a lot more of it.

I think the only realistic chance in which something may change is that
somebody sits down and does all the work, from beginning to end. I doubt
that a design doc and some inner loops alone will make any difference.

It's not being done (to my knowledge), for the reason alone that it
would be a lot of work. It has a chance to be deployed only if a)
it is significantly faster, for small numbers, b) correct, and c)
only slightly more complicated than the current code.

I notice that such discussion is off-topic for this bug report, which
is about your original patch. All we have to decide here is whether to
accept it (perhaps with modifications), or to reject it.