[Gardeners] Project Proposal: Standardized Utility Library

[Nikodemus Siivola]

Richard M Kreuter <kreuter at progn.net> writes:

> An explicit versioning mechanism for Lisp packages is neither
> sufficient nor necessary.
>
> Suppose you've got two versions of a package whose un-versioned name
> is FOO in your Lisp image; one version of FOO exports a symbol with
> name BAR, the other exports a symbol QUUX, and neither BAR nor QUUX is
> exported by both.  

This is not the case I am interested in. I am interested in incompatible
API-changes, like functions with the same name and basic functionality,
but different numbers of required arguments. 

Cheers,

  -- Nikodemus              Schemer: "Buddha is small, clean, and serious."
                   Lispnik: "Buddha is big, has hairy armpits, and laughs."