On Aug 15, 2006, at 12:57 PM, Iain Hibbert wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
>> I don't like OPTIONAL-REQUIRE; that's too much of a semantic clash.
>>
>> How about
>>
>> BEFORE-IF-PRESENT:
>>
>> AFTER-IF-PRESENT:
>
> They all looks funny to me. How about just
>
> BEFORE:
>
> AFTER:
>
> and have them optional by definition?

BEFORE is optional by definition, I think (it already exists).

>
> iain

-- thorpej