On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 09:11:32AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
>   UPHOLD and REQUIRE(S) - currently used way (with BEFORE replaced by UPHOLD)
> 
> "UPHOLD" doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> Given the backwards compat goal (which I think is reasonable), that
> leaves us with the choice:
> 
> 
> 1) backwards compat
> 
> add BEFORE-IF-PRESENT and AFTER-IF-PRESENT, like BEFORE and AFTER but
> don't complain if not present
> 
> 2) non-backwards-compat
> 
> make BEFORE and AFTER not complain if not present

There is no AFTER atm.

Pavel