Ivan Lazar Miljenovic schrieb: > We considered giving it a new name (fgl', etc.) but figured that in the > long term this wouldn't be advantagous. We feel that the situation is > analogous to QuickCheck: when the new version came out most people kept > using the old one until slowly the momentum shifted and more people > started using the new version (without checking in depth, Roel's Hackage > mirror reports QC-2.x now has 153 reverse dependencies as opposed to 127 > reverse dependencies for QC-1.y). > > If we changed the name, then the "emotional attachment" that the Haskell > community has to FGL being the de-facto graph library means that people > would keep using the old version. Whilst we also face the possible > problems of people not liking the old version and thus automatically > dismissing the new version, I think this is a much more unlikely > scenario.
I'm afraid you'll destroy the "emotational attachment" to fgl by annoying incompatibilities (and possibly interfering new bugs). Although parsec-3 can be used as an replacement for parsec-2 it would have been better, they had different names (as argued elsewhere for the haskell platform). Changing a dependency in a cabal file is a small problem. Those (unaware), who only mention "fgl", will fall over an incompatibility (usually at installation time!) and simple say "fgl < ..." unless they are willing to change their code then. Those who already have "fgl < ..." need to find an advertisement of a "new and better fgl" anyway and can choose when to change their code. Christian _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell