Inline peek_ahead to fix 186 and remove iter::peek_ahead as it is now unused.

[hkBst]

Fixes #186

[hkBst]

Actually, is there really any reason for this complicated dance? Why not just match on "POST "? It seems that would probably do fewer bounds checks as well. Or if it does one for GET and then another one for POST, maybe it would work to match on bytes.len()?

[seanmonstar]

I can say that method was very carefully adjusted to improve performance significantly.

[hkBst]

Right, well this patch just inlines what the compiler was asked to inline, possibly a slightly more efficient version, so there should be no performance regression.

Is there anything you dislike about this approach?

[seanmonstar]

Hm, could we just make peek_ahead unsafe and revert back to using cursor.add(n) once, adding a comment that the caller must be sure n is within the range? I think that'd keep the one place it's called a little cleaner.

[hkBst]

Alright, after some thought I agree with you that this is not very nice, since we are breaking out of the Bytes abstraction, so I am closing this in favor of pull #191.