[Haskell-cafe] Re: Rewriting a famous library and using the same name: pros and consf

2010-06-09 Thread Stephen Tetley
Hi John My feeling is that a beginner would be transferring almost all of the the knowledge they gained from Parsec 2.1 if they moved to Parsec 3.0. We're talking about famous libraries, so the library was previously valuable and useful before the discontinuous version change. In Parsec 3.0's

[Haskell-cafe] Re: Rewriting a famous library and using the same name: pros and consf

2010-06-08 Thread John Lato
From: Stephen Tetley stephen.tet...@gmail.com Hello all While new libraries develop at pace, their documentation rarely does; so I'd have to disagree with John's claim that re-naming libraries makes development by new users harder. I'd argue that having tutorials not work for later

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Rewriting a famous library and using the same name: pros and consf

2010-06-08 Thread Jason Dagit
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:28 PM, John Lato jwl...@gmail.com wrote: From: Stephen Tetley stephen.tet...@gmail.com Hello all While new libraries develop at pace, their documentation rarely does; so I'd have to disagree with John's claim that re-naming libraries makes development by new

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Rewriting a famous library and using the same name: pros and consf

2010-06-08 Thread Ivan Miljenovic
On 9 June 2010 12:11, Jason Dagit da...@codersbase.com wrote: Or write translator tools for upgrading to the new API :)  Pipe dream?  Maybe. Too an extent, yes: the types are more generalised so it's going to be difficult to do automatic translations. However, Thomas has demonstrated that you