Bug in Parsec.Token

[Greg Fitzgerald]

> Derek, if you wouldn't mind renaming Parsec 3, I volunteer to become
> the maintainer of the Parsec package.

Alternatively, how do people feel about branching Parsec 2.1 as
Parsec98 in Hackage?  This would allow Derek to keep Parsec 3 as the
"future of Parsec" and those such as myself, the ability to freeze on
the Haskell98 implementation.

Thanks,
Greg


On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If the community wants to freeze on Parsec 2, then I have no problem
>> renaming the package, otherwise I think it is both unnecessary and a
>> waste of effort.
>
> Reasons one might prefer Parsec 2.1:
> * Haskell98 implementation
> * Daan Leijen's whitepapers:
>   http://legacy.cs.uu.nl/daan/download/parsec/parsec.pdf
>   http://legacy.cs.uu.nl/daan/download/papers/parsec-paper.pdf
>
> Reasons one might prefer Parsec 3.1:
> * Parametric in the input stream type (parses ByteStrings)
> * Monad transformer that can be stacked on arbitrary monads
> * More Haddock documentation
>
> Parsec 3 is certainly useful, but there are still good, valid reasons
> one might prefer Parsec 2.1.
>
> Derek, if you wouldn't mind renaming Parsec 3, I volunteer to become
> the maintainer of the Parsec package.
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>