Simon Marlow
Wouldn't keeping "base-2.0" and rebranding "base-3.0" to "foundation-1.0" (which might be listed as "Solution 2.1") solve this issue?
This is actually what proposal 4.2 is about.
Oh, I didn't catch that - I guess I didn't (and don't) see the connectiong to 4 (re-exporting of modules from other packages), nor does 4.2 seem to say anything about naming base differently. Looks like an orthogonal issue to me. Am I missing something?
But note that in order to keep base-2.0 around you need to either compile up a complete copy of it and all the packages that depend on it (proposal 2, a non-starter IMO),
Perhaps the document could elaborate why it is a non-starter? -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants