On Jan 6,  4:26am, "Mike M. Volokhov" wrote:
} David Young <dyoung@pobox.com> wrote:
} > On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 08:57:34PM +0100, 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?
} > 
} > Yes, please! :-)
} 
} Okay, I'll use the following scheme then:
} 
}   BEFORE and AFTER - order with possible absent providers
}   UPHOLD and REQUIRE(S) - currently used way (with BEFORE replaced by UPHOLD)
} 
} Because all existent scripts are proven, I see no big problem with
} 'relaxing' BEFORE meaning, yet it still fully backward compatible.
} On the light side, new naming scheme will look much more consistent.

     I don't like the idea of redefining existing keywords.  That sort
of thing can cause nasty surprises.

}-- End of excerpt from "Mike M. Volokhov"