> it's usual for the existing upper bounds to refer to versions that don't > exist at the time of writing (and hence can't be known to be stable).
Well, known to be stable given semantic versioning, then. http://semver.org/ On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan <b...@serpentine.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:50 PM, David Thomas <davidleotho...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Would it make sense to have a known-to-be-stable-though soft upper bound >> added proactively, and a known-to-break-above hard bound added reactively, >> so people can loosen gracefully as appropriate? > > I don't think so. It adds complexity, but more importantly it's usual for > the existing upper bounds to refer to versions that don't exist at the time > of writing (and hence can't be known to be stable). > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
