On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Michael Snoyman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:michael@snoyman.com">michael@snoyman.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div>We'd been discussing the PathInfo class previously; I understand now what you're trying to achieve with it, but I think for a lot of use cases using a parser like that will be unnecesary. For those cases, I'd hate to introduce a parsec dependency, especially given the 2/3 split we're dealing with right now.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>web-routes depends on network, and network depends on parsec 2. So we already depend (indirectly) on parsec 2 whether we want to or not. (On debian, for example, to install libghc6-network-dev, libghc6-parsec-dev must also be installed).</div>
<div><br></div><div>So, I think that means that adding parsec 2 as a direct dependency should not be an issue in terms of adding any new dependencies? (Ignoring the question as to whether parsec is the right tool for the job in the first place).</div>
<div><br></div><div>- jeremy</div></div>