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.

--
Mishka