Was that API approach inspired by “speculation”, or independently?

I recall being amused that Rich argued against version numbers, and then suggested hello2 as a name

@glenjamin Inspired by speculation. Because the return value changes, I don’t think there’s a way of doing it without creating a new function or namespace.

It would be nice if we could version namespaces in Clojure

(require 'hiccup.core :version 2.0)

Though a lot of versioning is just accreting functionality. It would only matter for incompatibilities.

Could be more descriptive and call it hiccup-safe, or is that too bold a claim?

There might be other things added to hiccup2.core/html that are nothing to do with safety, though perhaps they’d be features added both to hiccup.core and hiccup2.core.

hiccup.safe is a possibility.

I feel like this was one of the goals of Jaunt.

https://www.arrdem.com/2016/02/22/clojarr_-_a_friendly_clojure_fork/ > What if we gave Namespaces and Vars version numbers? When a Namespace is re-defined (the ns form is evaluated) then the Namespace's version is incremented. When a def is evaluated, the version of the Var bound by the def is set to be the version of the Namespace in which that Var exists.

That sounds more like version numbers specific to the running JVM.