Why isn?t (>>>) a method?

[Ross Paterson]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 04:02:36PM -0500, David Menendez wrote:
> I also think trying to shoe-horn a new, incompatible definition for
> Arrow into a base-3.0.* release was a mistake. The whole point of
> having a versioning policy is lost if you don't follow it. Given how
> isolated Arrow is in the standard libraries, they could have just
> created a new class and deprecated the old one without causing much
> fuss.

It is isolated in base, but it's also wired into GHC.  The whole point
of base-compat is to present a different view of the same entities,
so that packages using the base-3 interface and those using the base-4
interface can be combined.  There was no way that could work with a
changed Arrow class.