Ian Lynagh <ig...@earth.li> writes: > On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 11:50:44AM -0700, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote: > >> A complete rewrite with a new maintainer: fgl-awesome > > In 10 years time, we don't want to have > fgl > fgl-awesome > fgl-great > fgl-joe > which all do the same thing, and have an unclear relationship to each > other.
Definitely (though hopefully we wouldn't pick names like "fgl-awesome" anyway...). > I think the important question is: Once the new FGL is finished, will > there be a good reason (other than backwards compatibility) for people > to use the current FGL? > > If yes, then different names should be used. Otherwise, no matter how > different the API is, keeping the same name is the right thing to do. And this is why we're going to request the community's input on our API design: to try and avoid the situation where there's a specific reason to keep using the old one. As it stands, the only real advantage that I can think of is that the new version uses extensions, the old version doesn't (and hence is more compatible). > So if there is consensus that the new design is a better fgl, I think it > ought to keep the name. Which is what we're trying to build (the consensus, that is). Don has started a wiki page with the arguments here, and I've already added my 2c: http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Libraries/WhenToRewriteOrRename -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe