Simon Marlow wrote: > Hopefully that explains why sometimes we make breaking changes. If > the > breaking change has a high enough impact, then it becomes worthwhile > to > add backwards compatibility (via warnings / deprecation or whatever). > Of course from the point of view of the user, the impact is always > either high (it broke) or zero (it didn't) :-) We have to make a > judgement as to whether we should spend effort on backwards > compatibility or not. Perhaps we're getting it wrong - so feedback > from > users is always valuable.
>From the point of view of darcs, which is usually trying to support 2 or 3 GHC >versions at a time, one cycle of deprecation makes life a lot simpler. We do >look at warnings and try to fix them, but it's nicer not to have to do so in a >real hurry. Cheers, Ganesh =============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html =============================================================================== _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
