(Complete) range dependencies back in the game? was: No isolation

[Jaroslav Tulach]

>## 4. 1. 2012 17:01:23 ##<
> On 01/04/2012 04:13 AM, Jaroslav Tulach wrote:
> module java.beans @ 1.8.3 {
>    // did not use delItems, so give a lax dep
>    requires optional java.awt @ [1.8,3);
> }

My original proposal did not allow dependency like [1.8, 3). Only [1.8, 2). I 
was trying to incorporate the wider range into the proof somehow and at the 
end I think: maybe a modified version of range dependencies is not that bad 
(combine with best practices based on semantic versioning).

If anyone wants to check (and correct) my thoughts, here is a link to my write 
up: http://wiki.apidesign.org/wiki/RangeDependenciesAnalysed

-jt