On 2 August 2010 16:24, Jean-Philippe Bernardy
Can you explain why you could not use the parsec name, with revision number (say) 2.2?
This would help improve hackage/cabal/... versioning mechanism.
I think the idea is to give it more prominence: if you go to http://hackage.haskell.org/package/parsec, the version that hits you immediately is 3.1.0; it isn't as immediately obvious that there is a new parsec-2.x version out. That said, if parsec2 is only a bug-fix branch of parsec-2.x, is there any particular reason work couldn't be done to improve the performance of parsec-3 when using the compatibility layer (and even improving the performance of parsec-3 overall) rather than a specific branch/fork? Unless the API changes from either parsec-2.x or the compatibility modules in parsec-3, I'm not sure how much use this would be; as it stands, in Gentoo we already tweak a lot of package cabal files to remove the upper bounds on parsec some of them impose, and we're likely to do the same to make packages that use parsec2 just use "normal" parsec instead. -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic Ivan.Miljenovic@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com