Please don't deprecate Haskell 98 modules.

[Christian Maeder]

I'm all for supporting the haskell98 *language* (aka "portable" haskell
code) except wrt non-hierarchical module names.

Without hierarchical module names cabal and hackage are unperceivable.

In fact, the haskell98 modules are bit-rotten and the corresponding
hierarchical modules (like Data.List) are certainly no "bleeding edge
APIs", but the de-facto standard.

Christian

John Meacham schrieb:
> Please don't deprecate these modules. 
> 
> It is actively contributing to bitrot to deprecate a perfectly useful
> and well defined API. When I write new code that only needs C, I don't
> use C++ just because C is older. Likewise, when writing Haskell code
> today that doesn't require anything more than haskell 98, I use haskell
> 98. Because it is a well defined standard that I know will be supported
> by future and past compilers. Unlike writing to some current snapshot of
> what the libraries look like.
> 
> Encouraging people to use bleeding edge APIs just contributes to the
> already dicey problem of writing future and backwards compatible code in
> Haskell, in fact, writing to haskell 98 is the _only_ option at the
> moment with any ability to do so.
> 
> Haskell 98 should never be deprecated, because it is a stable, well defined
> standard that useful programs can be written to if someone chooses to do
> so and wants their code to have a chance of working down the road
> without having to continually keep changing it to keep up with libraries
> changes.
> 
>         John 
> 
>