On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 02:26:14PM -0700, Thomas DuBuisson wrote: > Ian Lynagh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Perhaps we should fork random as old-random > > > > This would probably imply the next Haskell' release not specifying > > System.Random. > > H2010 already doesn't specify Random, unless I missed something.
Ah, better still. random98 might be a better name, in that case. > I've never liked the "old-*" package renaming as that already > introduces (minor) breakage and doesn't seem to encourage people to > move forward. Why avoid using versioning and build-deps for this > (adding a version bound is similar work to adding "old-")? Mainly because I like to only have a single version of each package. Just having an old version of random is another option. Thanks Ian _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
