"Faré" <fahree@gmail.com> wrote:

Looking at packages in quicklisp, it appears that no one explicitly
calls version-satisfies and really relies on the fact that it isn't
the same as version<= (actually, several packages, all written by me,
go through some pains to emulate version<= in spite of only
version-satisfies being available in asdf 2).

On the other hand, 41 different .asd files rely on (:version ...)
constrained dependencies, and may or may not expect a different major
version to be considered as incompatible.

So, is anyone going to complain if I do as Xach suggests and have
version-satisfies be an alias for version<= ?

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
If this country is worth saving, it's worth saving at a profit. — H. L. 
 Hunt
This country can only be saved if it can be saved at a profit. — Patri Friedman


On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Faré <fahree@gmail.com> wrote:
What about making version-satisfies return t?

I could do (and implemented that as version<=), but
that would violate the previous contract.
Not that I am aware of anyone relying on the previous contract.

What do people here think is the right thing?

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
One of the greatest discoveries a man makes, one of his great surprises,
is to find he can do what he was afraid he couldn't do. �
 � Henry
Ford