On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Ganesh Sittampalam <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:ganesh@earth.li" target="_blank">ganesh@earth.li</a>&gt;</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 class="im"><br>
&gt; Yes. And I&#39;d be in favour of removing the class entirely. Just use a<br>
&gt; single ByteString type. I don&#39;t think the overloading buys us<br>
&gt; anything.<br>
<br>
</div>Which one should it use, lazy bytestring?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Probably yes, assuming we want to retain the ability to lazily stream responses. Which is very nearly the only raison d&#39;etre of the HTTP package at this point.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I&#39;m not particularly keen on removing the overloading as I don&#39;t think<br>
keeping it costs much for now and I kind of like the idea.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>It doesn&#39;t cost much, but it also seems to no longer have any benefit, which suggests that it could usefully be dropped.</div>
</div>