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 ===============================================================================