Ivan Lazar Miljenovic schrieb: >> 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). > > I'm sorry, I don't recall this discussion: care to summarise?
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2010-March/013101.html > With fgl, the actual changes aren't that big on the user side of things > if they want to keep using the defaults (it's not a drop-in replacement, > but the _way_ to use it remains unchanged). I usually don't want to make even small changes at installation time. > The big difference is when people want to make custom instances; > however, as far as I know no-one has created any custom instances for > FGL's classes. Well, I've created a custom instance: http://trac.informatik.uni-bremen.de:8080/hets/browser/trunk/Common/Lib/Graph.hs and our hets project is not a hackageDB package. > But by keeping the old fgl around as a separate package, there is then > no real incentive to change/upgrade. If, however, we re-use the package > name then it will be more obvious that there is a new and (hopefully) > improved version available. Your "incentive" would be a "small annoyance" for me since it would force me to change the dependency to "fgl < ..." until I find time to test our code with the newer fgl version (without possible other changes). (I still haven't updated from tabular-0.1.0.2 to tabular-0.2.x, yet.) Cheers Christian _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell