Henrik Nilsson-2 wrote
Jeremy wrote:
There seems to be a fair amount of friction between those who want to introduce new features or fix significant historical warts in the base libraries - even if this requires breaking changes - and those who insist on no significant breaking changes in new releases, regardless of the reason or how much warning was given.
With respect, and without commenting on the merits of the proposal that is then outlined (Long-Term Support Haskell), I don't think this is an accurate description of the two main positions in the debate at all.
Most of those who have argued against MRP, for example, have made it very clear that they are not at all against any breaking change. But they oppose breaking changes to Haskell itself, including central libraries, as defined by the Haskell report, unless the benefits are very compelling indeed.
With equal respect, I stopped following the MRP thread when its length exceeded my interest, so my comments may not be applicable here :-) The LTS solution should work as long as all (or at least a big enough majority) agree that the benefits of a change are desirable, but disagree as to the cost of breaking change. It allows the "nice idea but don't keep breaking my code" people to co-exist with the "nice idea let's do it" people. -- View this message in context: http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/Monad-of-no-return-Proposal-MRP-Moving-... Sent from the Haskell - Libraries mailing list archive at Nabble.com.