transformers versus mtl

[Henning Thielemann]

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:

> Henning Thielemann wrote:
>
>> We already found out, that compatibility to mtl cannot be achieved
>> with a package based on transformers.
>
> Can you elaborate on this or point me at the past discussion? I can't
> find anything from a quick look through the archives, apart from the
> issue that haddock will go wrong if mtl just re-exports things from
> transformers.

In mtl State is a type with constructor State, whereas in transformers 
State is a type synonym with no custom constructor. So, if mtl uses the 
State type synonym from transformers it cannot be compatible with old mtl 
versions.

>> So why shall we rewrite mtl in
>> terms of transformers+monad-fd at all? I welcome advertising
>> transformers+transformers+monad-fd,
>> but I don't see the benefits of breaking mtl.
>
> If we don't make mtl and transformers use the same types,
> we will have some packages with interfaces that use one and some
> with interfaces that use the other for quite a long time to come.

That's why I think that we should extensively tell people to use 
'transformers' instead of 'mtl'.

> Also, if mtl stays in extralibs/the Haskell Platform but remains
> incompatible with transformers, then it will be in some way blessed
> which will hinder a move to transformers, but if we suddenly remove
> it then a lot of people will suddenly have to go and find it from
> hackage when previously they got it with GHC.

I don't like people forcing this way, as I for myself could spend my whole 
life keeping my Haskell libraries up-to-date without adding any feature or 
fixing any bug. I think, mtl should be removed from extralibs, but it 
should not be upgraded in an incompatible way. We would break packages, 
not more. I think, incompatibility between libraries based on mtl and 
those based on transformers is enough hassle to make developers think 
about a move to 'transformers'. I remember this was your motivation, too, 
right?