Petr Pudlák | 10 Feb 21:38 2013
Picon

Control.Monad provisional?

Dear Haskellers,

I see: "Stability provisional". I checked some older versions and it's the same. This feel somewhat unsettling - if Control.Monad is provisional, do we have any "stable" packages at all?

  Best regards,
  Petr Pudlak
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Alfredo Di Napoli | 11 Feb 09:03 2013
Picon

Re: Control.Monad provisional?

I might be wrong,


but the impression I always had is that that field is something that most developer struggle to keep in sync. Maybe it
was provisional ages ago, but they simply forgot to upgrade to "stable" or they are simply too humble and think
"How am I to judge if a package is stable or not"? :)

My 2 cents :P
A.

On 10 February 2013 20:38, Petr Pudlák <petr.mvd <at> gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Haskellers,

I see: "Stability provisional". I checked some older versions and it's the same. This feel somewhat unsettling - if Control.Monad is provisional, do we have any "stable" packages at all?

  Best regards,
  Petr Pudlak

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Roman Cheplyaka | 11 Feb 10:53 2013

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Control.Monad provisional?

Alfredo is right. Most users don't pay much attention to it, and
developers have preferred to be conservative and mark the modules as
experimental (and provisional at best), because there's no incentive to
commit to keeping the modules stable. And there's no policy about stable
modules.

The Haskell Platform is a much more successful experiment in the same
direction, because there actually is an incentive (and clear need) to
keep the packages stable.

"Portability" is another obsolete field. The same information nowadays
can be robustly inferred from the LANGUAGE pragmas in the modules and
the .cabal file.

For my packages, I stopped putting these fields quite some time ago, and
I'm looking forward to their removal.

Roman

* Alfredo Di Napoli <alfredo.dinapoli <at> gmail.com> [2013-02-11 08:03:30+0000]
> I might be wrong,
> 
> but the impression I always had is that that field is something that most
> developer struggle to keep in sync. Maybe it
> was provisional ages ago, but they simply forgot to upgrade to "stable" or
> they are simply too humble and think
> "How am I to judge if a package is stable or not"? :)
> 
> My 2 cents :P
> A.
> 
> On 10 February 2013 20:38, Petr Pudlák <petr.mvd <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Dear Haskellers,
> >
> > Looking at Control.Monad:
> > http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/base/4.6.0.0/doc/html/Control-Monad.html
> > I see: "Stability provisional". I checked some older versions and it's
> > the same. This feel somewhat unsettling - if Control.Monad is provisional,
> > do we have any "stable" packages at all?
> >
> >   Best regards,
> >   Petr Pudlak
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> > Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> >
> >

> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Gmane