Derek, if you wouldn't mind renaming Parsec 3, I volunteer to become the maintainer of the Parsec package.
Alternatively, how do people feel about branching Parsec 2.1 as
Parsec98 in Hackage? This would allow Derek to keep Parsec 3 as the
"future of Parsec" and those such as myself, the ability to freeze on
the Haskell98 implementation.
Thanks,
Greg
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Greg Fitzgerald
If the community wants to freeze on Parsec 2, then I have no problem renaming the package, otherwise I think it is both unnecessary and a waste of effort.
Reasons one might prefer Parsec 2.1: * Haskell98 implementation * Daan Leijen's whitepapers: http://legacy.cs.uu.nl/daan/download/parsec/parsec.pdf http://legacy.cs.uu.nl/daan/download/papers/parsec-paper.pdf
Reasons one might prefer Parsec 3.1: * Parametric in the input stream type (parses ByteStrings) * Monad transformer that can be stacked on arbitrary monads * More Haddock documentation
Parsec 3 is certainly useful, but there are still good, valid reasons one might prefer Parsec 2.1.
Derek, if you wouldn't mind renaming Parsec 3, I volunteer to become the maintainer of the Parsec package.
Thanks, Greg