Bug in Parsec.Token

[Antoine Latter]

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Don Stewart <dons at galois.com> wrote:
> Parsec98 is kind of a cool name, actually.
>
> -- Don
>

Back to this -

Currently, there's a problem with two versions of parsec being in use
at the same time, and there is a real desire and need for the
low-complexity parsec-2.1.

If we fork and put parsec-2.1 into a parsec98 package, we could then
submit that for inclusion into the platform, and continue offering
parsec-3 for folks that want the complexity/features.

So yes? No? Would anyone prefer that we fork parsec-3 off instead?

-Antoine