<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Dear all,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What you think, if instead of /Since: 4.8.0.0/, we start to use /Since: base-4.8.0.0/.</div><div class="">Adding the package name seems redundant, but on the other hand some haddock</div><div class="">instance lists look weird. For example in Cabal Distribution.Version docs [1] has:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">NFData Version -- /Since: 1.3.0.0/</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Luckily Cabal is in 1.2x, otherwise /Since: 1.3.0.0/ next to the NFData Version could be</div><div class="">very confusing.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What you think about this new practice?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Greetings,</div><div class="">Oleg Grenrus</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">[1] <a href="http://hackage.haskell.org/package/Cabal-1.22.4.0/docs/Distribution-Version.html#control.i:Version" class="">http://hackage.haskell.org/package/Cabal-1.22.4.0/docs/Distribution-Version.html#control.i:Version</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">P.S. also the [1] doesn’t show orphan `Binary Version` instance provided. I hope it was</div><div class="">a temporary glitch in haddock.</div></body></html>