I will do that. One other thing that is really just semantics. Would it be better to call the operations 'unchecked-<whatever>' instead of 'unsafe-<whatever>'? Generally, we are calling the function because we know it is safe to avoid some constraint check - not because it is unsafe. Just a nit.
Doug On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu>wrote: > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Matthew Flatt<mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > At Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:22:34 -0600, Doug Williams wrote: > >> I assume that if I use these and introduce a dependency on 4.2.2 or > later > >> that I should also bump the version number of the science collection in > >> PLaneT - even if the interface remains the same. Does that make sense? > > > > No, I think you wouldn't change the major version, since there's no API > > change. > > You would, however, add a constraint that the latest version of the > science collection depends on 4.2.2 and so people using 4.2.1 (and > lower) wouldn't see that new version. > > Robby >
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
