On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 09:28:44AM +0100, Sven Panne wrote: > Ross Paterson wrote: > >[...] Ideally, the new package would be sold to the MTL users as a > >replacement for the old one, which would then disappear. > > [...] > > >But the major part would be the negotiations with MTL users. > > Well, it's a bit hard to negotiate with an unknown user base.
I expect that a message on the haskell list would reach most of them. > I propose to make the new monad package the default (= auto package) in > the next GHC release, but at the same time keeping the old mtl package > (which would be non-auto then) for people who still want it. Or are > there technical problems with this approach? To do that, you'd need to rename the modules in the mtl package, since we can't ship packages with overlapping namespaces, so they'd need to change their code anyway. But technical issues aren't the point, I think. I'm just guessing, but I imagine this approach leading to howls of protest at the next GHC and Hugs releases. And there may even be some detail of the interface changes that makes things genuinely difficult for someone, but could be avoided with simple changes in advance. > Hmmm, Hugs has no package concept... No, it doesn't support packages in a comparable way to the compilers. But the dir/* feature is a very basic package mechanism (and simplicity is one of the great features of Hugs, IMHO). Doesn't make any difference in this case though, I think. _______________________________________________ Cvs-libraries mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-libraries
