ivan.miljenovic: > Christian Maeder <christian.mae...@dfki.de> writes: > > > 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 > > I've read through that thread, but I remain unconvinced. First of all, > I think there are a few misconceptions raised there (e.g. the gitit > discussion is because John Macfarlane doesn't want to use Parsec-3 for > Pandoc because it used to be slow and because it isn't available in > Debian; this latter point shouldn't be a concern for most software > IMHO; secondly, if the documentation of the 2.x series was better, then > why not improve the documentation of the 3.y series?). > > Maintaining Haskell98 compatability may be a valid concern (I don't know > how valid it is to most people, but I can see some people preferring > it). > > _Why_ should a library remain fixed at a particular version (unless of > course you are convinced it is perfect)? By creating a new package, > people will keep using the old version which will eventually bit-rot > rather than upgrading. >
If it is a complete rewrite, with a new API, in what sense is it FGL? How is it true to Erwig's design? I think it is great you want to overhaul it, but I bet that FGL 6 (or whatever) is going to break a bunch of Hackage when you upload it -- because very very few fgl users specify a version range. Can you avoid that? -- Don _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell