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