Would it make sense to have a known-to-be-stable-though soft upper bound added proactively, and a known-to-break-above hard bound added reactively, so people can loosen gracefully as appropriate? On Aug 15, 2012 1:45 PM, "Johan Tibell" <johan.tib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Brandon Allbery <allber...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > So we are certain that the rounds of failures that led to their being > > *added* will never happen again? > > It would be useful to have some examples of these. I'm not sure we had > any when we wrote the policy (but Duncan would know more), but rather > reasoned our way to the current policy by saying that things can > theoretically break if we don't have upper bounds, therefore we need > them. > > -- Johan > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
