I will do that.<br><br>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.<br> <br>Doug<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Robby Findler <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robby@eecs.northwestern.edu">robby@eecs.northwestern.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="im">On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Matthew Flatt<<a href="mailto:mflatt@cs.utah.edu">mflatt@cs.utah.edu</a>> wrote:<br> > At Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:22:34 -0600, Doug Williams wrote:<br> </div><div class="im">>> I assume that if I use these and introduce a dependency on 4.2.2 or later<br> >> that I should also bump the version number of the science collection in<br> >> PLaneT - even if the interface remains the same. Does that make sense?<br> ><br> > No, I think you wouldn't change the major version, since there's no API<br> > change.<br> <br> </div>You would, however, add a constraint that the latest version of the<br> science collection depends on 4.2.2 and so people using 4.2.1 (and<br> lower) wouldn't see that new version.<br> <font color="#888888"><br> Robby<br> </font></blockquote></div><br>