Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com> wrote:
> 
> I don't like OPTIONAL-REQUIRE; that's too much of a semantic clash.
> 
> How about 
> 
> BEFORE-IF-PRESENT:
> 
> AFTER-IF-PRESENT:
> 
> This avoids using REQUIRE (since these aren't actual requirements,
> just ordering constraints), and expresses the "if foo is here, this
> has to go before foo, but if not don't worry" quite naturally (to me
> anyway).

Hm, sounds reasonable. How about adding AFTER as alias to REQUIRE then?

--
Mishka.