Re: Why upper bound version numbers?

The odd thing about this is that to upper bound a package that you did not write (like base) you would have to know that incompatible changes were coming in subsequent revisions, or that features of the API that you rely on will be changed. The upper bound makes perfect sense for packages that you are maintaining. Perhaps the answer to my original question is that the maintainer of clash is also maintaining (part of) base? On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Dominick Samperi wrote:

...

Consequently, it refuses to install with the latest ghc provided with the Haskell Platform (8.0.1).

base is not defined by the Platform, it is defined by (and ships with, and must completely match) ghc. And no, backward compatibility is not guaranteed; for a recent example, ghc 7.10 broke many programs by making Applicative a "superclass" of Monad and by generalizing many Prelude functions to Foldable and/or Traversable.

-- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allbery.b@gmail.com ballbery@sinenomine.net unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net