On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 06:38:46PM +0100, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote: > Ian Lynagh <i...@well-typed.com> writes: > > [...] > > > If we did that then every package would depend on haskell2010, which > > is fine until haskell2013 comes along and they all need to be changed > > (or miss out on any improvements that were made). > > ...wouldn't there also be the danger of type(class)-incompatible > (e.g. the superclass breakages for startes) changes between say > haskell2010 and haskell2013, that would cause problems when trying to > mix libraries depending on different haskell20xx library versions?
I think that actually, for the Num/Show change, the hasell98/haskell2010 packages just incorrectly re-export the new class. Personally, I don't think the language report should be specifying the content of libraries at all, and I doubt anyone really uses the haskell* packages. A separate library specification, perhaps based on the Haskell Platform, would make more sense IMO. But that's another debate :-) Thanks Ian _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users