Also important is the extent to which the maintainers are willing and able
to change the library to respond to changes in users' needs and
expectations. Parsec, for example, seems to have been largely supplanted by
Megaparsec because it failed to evolve. And some libraries need to track
developments in implementation techniques, either replacing old techniques
or adding new ones alongside.
On Sep 12, 2016 2:53 PM, "Joachim Durchholz"
...and, "it will probably be replaced by something meaningful in the future." But it hasn't, nor has it been removed, and it's a better signal than no signal at all.
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 4:01 AM, Tom Ellis < tom-lists-haskell-cafe-2013@jaguarpaw.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 03:48:38AM -0700, Theodore Lief Gannon wrote:
In fact, there's a "Stability" field where you can indicate that it's officially experimental.
Six years ago Simon Marlow pronounced that the "Stability" field was "mostly defunct now, and shouldn't be used"
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3841218/conventions- for-stability-field-of-cabal-packages/3847493#3847493
Tom
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to: http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.