I still favor parsec 2 over parsec 3 because a) parsec 3 is no longer haskell98 (as major parts of parsec 2 are)
b) I don't like the compatibility layer (modules with re-exports) of parsec 3 for parsec 2 Without the compatibility layer (b) and making the package a new major version of parsec, we would probably not discuss this issue. I think the maintainers of "parsec 3" should create new package "parsec3" without the compatibility layer. A new package parsec2 was already created. There are simply no blessed parser packages! The problem is that so many package simply have "parsec" as dependency, otherwise I would vote for removing parsec from HP (or vote for parsec2). Christian Am 06.11.2010 16:18, schrieb Don Stewart: > Hey all, > > This is a loose end in the package policy situation: when the HP has a > major upgrade, the policy is to do all major upgrades for any packages > contained in the HP, as long as they don't add new dependencies. > > One exception to this rule has been parsec, where parsec 2 was > considered "blessed" on an ad hoc basis. > > I propose we agree to remove this ad hoc rule, and thus the HP will ship > with parsec 3. > > Does anyone have concerns with this? > > -- Don _______________________________________________ Haskell-platform mailing list Haskell-platform@projects.haskell.org http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-platform
