[Haskell] Re: Please check your dependencies on fgl

Don Stewart dons at galois.com
Tue Jun 8 10:03:15 EDT 2010

> Christian Maeder <Christian.Maeder at dfki.de> writes:
> > Ivan Lazar Miljenovic schrieb:
> >>> Although parsec-3 can be used as an replacement for parsec-2 it would
> >>> have been better, they had different names (as argued elsewhere for the
> >>> haskell platform).
> >> 
> >> I'm sorry, I don't recall this discussion: care to summarise?
> >
> > http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2010-March/013101.html
> I've read through that thread, but I remain unconvinced.  First of all,
> I think there are a few misconceptions raised there (e.g. the gitit
> discussion is because John Macfarlane doesn't want to use Parsec-3 for
> Pandoc because it used to be slow and because it isn't available in
> Debian; this latter point shouldn't be a concern for most software
> IMHO; secondly, if the documentation of the 2.x series was better, then
> why not improve the documentation of the 3.y series?).
> Maintaining Haskell98 compatability may be a valid concern (I don't know
> how valid it is to most people, but I can see some people preferring
> it).
> _Why_ should a library remain fixed at a particular version (unless of
> course you are convinced it is perfect)?  By creating a new package,
> people will keep using the old version which will eventually bit-rot
> rather than upgrading.

If it is a complete rewrite, with a new API, in what sense is it FGL? 
How is it true to Erwig's design?

I think it is great you want to overhaul it, but I bet that FGL 6 (or
whatever) is going to break a bunch of Hackage when you upload it --
because very very few fgl users specify a version range.

Can you avoid that?

-- Don

More information about the Haskell mailing list