Bug in Parsec.Token

Greg Fitzgerald garious at gmail.com
Thu Apr 1 23:39:33 EDT 2010

It sounds to me like forking Parsec 3 would cause quite a bit of pain
for other packages on Hackage, but forking Parsec 2.1 to Parsec98
would be relatively painless.  I started the process of moving the
parsec 2.1 source to community.haskell.org but the server wouldn't
recognize the public key of Windows box, and haven't had time to look
into it.  If someone else wants to maintain the fork, go for it.
Otherwise, I can maintain a branch on github.


On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Antoine Latter <aslatter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

More information about the Libraries mailing list