ivan.miljenovic:
Christian Maeder <Christian.Maeder@dfki.de> writes:
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic schrieb:
Although parsec-3 can be used as an replacement for parsec-2 it would have been better, they had different names (as argued elsewhere for the haskell platform).
I'm sorry, I don't recall this discussion: care to summarise?
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2010-March/013101.html
I've read through that thread, but I remain unconvinced. First of all, I think there are a few misconceptions raised there (e.g. the gitit discussion is because John Macfarlane doesn't want to use Parsec-3 for Pandoc because it used to be slow and because it isn't available in Debian; this latter point shouldn't be a concern for most software IMHO; secondly, if the documentation of the 2.x series was better, then why not improve the documentation of the 3.y series?).
Maintaining Haskell98 compatability may be a valid concern (I don't know how valid it is to most people, but I can see some people preferring it).
_Why_ should a library remain fixed at a particular version (unless of course you are convinced it is perfect)? By creating a new package, people will keep using the old version which will eventually bit-rot rather than upgrading.
If it is a complete rewrite, with a new API, in what sense is it FGL? How is it true to Erwig's design? I think it is great you want to overhaul it, but I bet that FGL 6 (or whatever) is going to break a bunch of Hackage when you upload it -- because very very few fgl users specify a version range. Can you avoid that? -- Don