Re: Bug in Parsec.Token

It sounds to me like forking Parsec 3 would cause quite a bit of pain for other packages on Hackage, but forking Parsec 2.1 to Parsec98 would be relatively painless. I started the process of moving the parsec 2.1 source to community.haskell.org but the server wouldn't recognize the public key of Windows box, and haven't had time to look into it. If someone else wants to maintain the fork, go for it. Otherwise, I can maintain a branch on github. -Greg On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Antoine Latter wrote:

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Don Stewart wrote:

...

Parsec98 is kind of a cool name, actually.

-- Don

Back to this -

Currently, there's a problem with two versions of parsec being in use at the same time, and there is a real desire and need for the low-complexity parsec-2.1.

If we fork and put parsec-2.1 into a parsec98 package, we could then submit that for inclusion into the platform, and continue offering parsec-3 for folks that want the complexity/features.

So yes? No? Would anyone prefer that we fork parsec-3 off instead?

-Antoine _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries